Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 4/10/26 and 4/21/26 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Line 5 recites “wherein said non-foamed layer”. It appears it should instead recite “wherein said one or more non-foamed layers”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al., US 2017/0183878 in view of Meersseman et al., US 2013/0104485.
Regarding claims 1 and 16:
Zhang discloses a floor panel having a substrate (1), a decoration (2) and a translucent or transparent wear layer (3, it is implied since 2 is a decorative color layer) provided above said decoration;
wherein the substrate (3) consists entirely of one or more non-foamed layers (PVC, it is not identified as foamed), wherein said non-foamed layer comprises a non-foamed thermoplastic material (PVC) that is free from plasticizers (abstract), wherein at least one of said non- foamed layer layers is situated directly underneath said decoration (2);
wherein the floor panel, seen in thickness, comprises at least 2 millimeters of said non-foamed thermoplastic material which is free from plasticizer (para. 0011).
Zhang does not expressly disclose wherein the decoration comprises a printed motif provided on a thermoplastic foil.
Meersseman discloses wherein a decoration comprises a printed motif (para. 0053) comprising a pattern of wood nerves forming a motif of a single wooden plank (9) provided on a PVC foil (para. 0012), wherein the transparent wear layer comprises PVC having a thickness of 0.15 to 0.75 mm in thickness (para. 0083 – 0.15 to 0.4mm).
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA) to substitute the thermoplastic foil and top layer structure of Meersseman for the color film of Zhang in order to impart a an aesthetically pleasing, realistic appearance.
Zhang does not expressly disclose, though Meersseman discloses wherein the floor panel, on at least two opposite edges, is provided with coupling means (4 and 5, refer to Fig. 2 for example) allowing coupling two of such the floor panels to each other, wherein at the respective edges a locking is effected at least in a vertical direction perpendicular to the a plane of the panels,
wherein at least one of said edges is provided with a groove (21), wherein said groove is bordered by an upper lip (23) and a lower lip (22), wherein said groove is provided for cooperation with a tongue on the opposite edge and wherein said upper lip is at least partially formed by said substrate (refer to Fig. 2).
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a PHOSITA to provide the coupling means of Meersseman to the floor panel of Zhang in order to provide a means for attaching adjacent panels.
Regarding claim 3:
Meersseman discloses wherein one or more indentations (Fig. 15) are provided in the surface of the floor panel (para. 0117).
Regarding claim 6:
Meersseman discloses wherein the thermoplastic foil is a PVC foil (para. 0022).
Regarding claims 7 and 8:
Meersseman discloses wherein the transparent wear layer comprises PVC (para. 0022) and has a thickness between 0.15 and 0.75 mm (para. 0083 – 0.15 to 0.4mm) and a superficial lacquer layer (para. 0021).
Regarding claim 11:
Zhang discloses wherein the non-foamed layer has no plasticizer and comprises PVC.
Regarding claim 12:
Meersseman discloses wherein at the respective edges a locking is effected in a horizontal direction in the plane of the panels and perpendicular to the edges (via lip 35), wherein at least one of the edges is provided with an upward directed hook shaped locking part (35), wherein said locking part extends at least partially in a portion of the substrate comprising the non-foamed thermoplastic material.
Regarding claim 13:
Meersseman discloses wherein an upper surface of the lower lip (22) is at least partially formed in a portion of the substrate comprising said non-foamed thermoplastic material.
Regarding claim 14:
Meersseman discloses wherein at the respective edges a locking is effected in a vertical direction perpendicular to the plane of the panels, as well as in a horizontal direction in the plane of the floor panels and perpendicular to the respective edges, wherein said locking in a vertical direction is provided by two pair of cooperating contact surfaces, and wherein at least one said two pairs is formed by a portion of the substrate comprising the non-foamed thermoplastic material (refer to Fig. 2).
Claims 4, 5, 17 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meersseman et al., US 2013/0104485 in view of Wiegelmann et al., US 2015/0030817.
Regarding claims 4, 5, 17 and 18:
Meersseman discloses indentations but does not expressly disclose wherein the depth of the indentations is 0.4mm or more.
Wiegelmann discloses providing indentation in the surface of a floor panel in a range of 0.005mm to 0.5mm (para. 0004 – 5 to 500 micrometers).
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a PHOSITA to provide indentations at the depth as suggested by Wiegelmann to the panels of Zhang in view of Meersseman in order to provide realistic imitation wood grains. In the case where the claimed range “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976)
Claims 9 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al., US 2017/0183878 in view of Meersseman et al., US 2013/0104485 further in view of Guyot et al., US 2017/0356130.
Regarding claim 9:
Zhang in view of Meersseman does not expressly disclose wherein the superficial lacquer layer is based on acrylate and is UV curable.
Guyot discloses a lacquer for flooring (abstract) wherein the lacquer is based on urethane, polyester or epoxide acrylates (para. 0054) and is UV curable.
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a PHOSITA to use the a lacquer based on the specified acrylic that is UV curable in order to allow curing of the lacquer at room temperature rapidly.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al., US 2017/0183878 in view of Meersseman et al., US 2013/0104485 and Guyot et al., US 2017/0356130 as applied to claim 9, further in view of Pervan et al., US 2010/0300030.
Regarding claim 10:
Zhang in view of Meersseman does not expressly disclose wherein said superficial lacquer layer comprises particles of aluminum oxide or silica.
Pervan discloses a floor panel with a superficial lacquer layer wherein the lacquer layer comprises particles of aluminum oxide (para. 0010).
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA) to provide aluminum oxide particles as suggested by Pervan to the lacquer of Zhang in view of Meersseman in order to improve wear resistance (para. 0010 of Pervan).
Claims 15 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al., US 2017/0183878 in view of Meersseman et al., US 2013/0104485, further in view of Bladh et al., US 2017/0247890.
Regarding claims 15 and 20:
Zhang in view of Meersseman does not expressly disclose wherein a space is present on the lower side of the tongue, wherein the space extends from the tip of the tongue up to a position underneath the upper lip.
Bladh discloses a tongue and groove panel connection wherein in a coupled condition, a space is present on the lower side of the tongue, wherein the space extends from the tip of the tongue up to a position underneath the upper lip (refer to Fig. 2).
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a PHOSITA to provide a space as suggested by Bladh to the coupled panels of Zhang in view of Meersseman in order to provide a space for thermal cycling.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s submittal of the IDS on 4/10/26 (citing Zhang et al., US 10,774,541 / US 2017/0183878) after the last office action resulted in the rescinding of allowable subject matter. Zhang discloses a floor member having a substrate layer consisting entirely of one or more non-foamed layers.
Conclusion
Applicant's submission of an information disclosure statement under 37 CFR 1.97(c) with the timing fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(p) on 4/10/26 prompted the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 609.04(b). 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 BRENT W HERRING whose telephone number is (571)270-3661. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:30a-6:00p MT.
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 Glessner can be reached at (571)272-6754. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/BRENT W HERRING/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3633
Prosecution Insights