DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 11/22/2024 has been considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: In the as-filed specification, reference numerals “31a” and “31b” are used to refer to the third and fourth upper edge portions, respectively (p. 52, Ln 19-20, 24-27). However, in Fig. 3, reference numerals “31a” and “32b” are used to refer to the third and fourth upper edge portions, respectively. The use of reference numeral “31b” in the specification and “32b” in Fig. 3 is therefore inconsistent.
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. 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.
Specification
The substitute specification filed September 25, 2024 complies with the requirements set forth in 37 CFR 1.125(b) and has been entered.
Claim Objections
Claims 59, 63-65, 68, 71, 72, and 74 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 59, the formatting of the limitations in lines 20-23 of claim 59 is inconsistent. As stated in MPEP 608.01(m), where a claim sets forth a plurality of elements or steps, each element or step of the claim should be separated by a line indentations, where plurality indentations may be used to further segregate subcombinations or related steps. Lines 20-23 appear to intend to set forth that the decorative top section comprises: (i) at least one decorative layer, and (ii) at least one transparent and/or translucent protective layer. However, these two features are indented differently under the “decorative top section” feature.
Regarding claims 59, 63, 64, 68, and 74, the limitations reciting “in coupled condition” (claim 59, line 17) should be amended to recite --in the coupled condition-- in order to more clearly refer back to the previously-recited feature set forth in line 15 of claim 59.
Regarding claims 65 and 72, Applicant is advised that should either of claims 65 or 72 be found allowable, the other claim will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Regarding claim 68, the limitation reciting “expendable material layers” in line 3 of claim 68 appears to contain a typographical error that should instead read --expandable material layers--.
Regarding claim 71, the limitation reciting “wherein the material composition of the upper layer (A) differs from to the material composition of the lower layer (C)” appears to contain a typographical error where the phrase “from to” should be amended to recite --from--.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 59-78 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 59, in the limitations reciting “in particular a decorative floor panel” (line 1) and “in particular co-acts or is configured to co-act with” (lines 10-11), the phrase “in particular” renders the claims indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. If stated in the claims, examples and preferences may lead to confusion over the intended scope of a claim. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). In the instant case, the remainder of the limitations following the phrase “in particular” are interpreted as exemplary claim language which does not further limit the scope of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 59, the limitations reciting “affixed to an upper side of said core layer” (lines 18-19) and “affixed…to an upper surface of the core layer” (lines 20-21) are indefinite because the phrase “the core layer” lacks proper antecedent basis in the claims. These limitations appear to intend to refer to the previously-recited “core” set forth in line 3 of claim 59, and will be interpreted as such for the purpose of applying prior art.
Regarding claim 65, the limitation reciting “wherein the thickness of the expandable layer varies along its length” is indefinite because the phrase “the expandable layer” lacks proper antecedent basis in the claims. Independent claim 59 sets forth that at least one material layer of the core comprises at least one expandable material layer (lines 13-14). In order to overcome this rejection, the limitation in claim 65 could be amended to recite --wherein the thickness of the at least one expandable material layer varies along its length-- in order to use consistent language throughout the claims.
Regarding claims 66 and 69-71, the limitations directed to “the upper layer (A)” (claims 66, 71), “the lower layer (C, A)” (claim 69), “the lower layer (A)” (claim 70), and “the lower layer (C)” (claim 71) are indefinite for lacking proper antecedent basis, as there is no prior recitation of an upper layer or a lower layer in the claims.
In looking to the instant specification, a basic configuration of the core is said to be where the core is composed of three layers only: an upper layer (A), a middle layer (B), and a lower layer (A, C) (p. 3, Ln 8-10). The upper and lower layers may have identical material compositions, while the middle layer typically has a different composition, which leads to an A-B-A structure (p. 3, Ln 11-13). Or, the lower layer (C) may have a different composition than the upper layer (A), resulting in an A-B-C structure (p. 3, Ln 13-15).
Although independent claim 59 sets forth that the core comprises at least three material layers, the claim does not provide proper antecedent basis for the recitations of “the upper layer” and “the lower layer” in the dependent claims. Further, in the instance where the core comprises more than three layers, it is not clear whether “the upper layer” and “the lower layer” refer to the uppermost and lowermost layers, respectively, or if the upper and lower layers can refer to any two layers within the core that are above/below one another, respectively.
Absent further clarification from the Applicant, for the purpose of applying prior art, the terms “upper layer” and “lower layer” will be interpreted broadly as any two layers within the core that are above/below one another, respectively.
Regarding claim 69, in the limitation reciting “wherein the lower layer (C, A) comprises a moisture sensitive material like wood or MDF or HDF”, the phrase “like” renders the claims indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. If stated in the claims, examples and preferences may lead to confusion over the intended scope of a claim. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). In the instant case, the remainder of the limitation following the phrase “like” is interpreted as exemplary claim language which does not further limit the scope of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 73, the limitation reciting “wherein the thickness of the expandable material layer is between 10 and 1000 micron, in particular between 20 and 500 micron” is indefinite. First, the phrase “the expandable material layer” lacks proper antecedent basis in the claims. It is suggested to amend this limitation to recite --the at least one expandable material layer-- in order to use consistent terminology throughout the claims.
Second, a broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 73 recites the broad recitation “between 10 and 1000 micron”, and the claim also recites “in particular between 20 and 500 micron”, which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims. For the purpose of applying prior art, the narrower range is interpreted as being merely exemplary and is therefore not required.
Regarding claim 74, in the limitations reciting “such as a U-shaped groove or a V-shaped groove, representing a grout line”, the phrase “such as” renders the claims indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. If stated in the claims, examples and preferences may lead to confusion over the intended scope of a claim. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). In the instant case, the remainder of the limitation following the phrase “such as” is interpreted as exemplary claim language which does not further limit the scope of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 75, the limitation reciting “wherein the material layer comprises at least one hydrogel-forming water-swellable polymer” is indefinite because the phrase “the material layer” lacks proper antecedent basis in the claims. Independent claim 59 sets forth that at least one material layer of the core comprises at least one expandable material layer (lines 13-14). In order to overcome this rejection, the limitation in claim 75 could be amended to recite --wherein the at least one expandable material layer comprises at least one hydrogel-forming water-swellable polymer-- in order to use consistent language throughout the claims.
Regarding claim 76, the limitation reciting “wherein the expandable material layer is coloured, wherein the colour of the expandable layer is representative for at least one panel characteristic” is indefinite because the phrases “the expandable material layer” and “the expandable layer” lack proper antecedent basis in the claims. Independent claim 59 sets forth that at least one material layer of the core comprises at least one expandable material layer (lines 13-14). In order to overcome this rejection, the limitation in claim 76 could be amended to recite --wherein the at least one expandable material layer is coloured, wherein the colour of the at least one expandable material layer is representative of at least one panel characteristic-- in order to use consistent language throughout the claims.
Regarding claim 77, in the limitations reciting “in particular said first upper edge portion” (lines 1-2) and “in particular a hydrophobic impregnation agent” (line 3), the phrase “in particular” renders the claims indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. If stated in the claims, examples and preferences may lead to confusion over the intended scope of a claim. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). In the instant case, the remainder of the limitations following the phrase “in particular” are interpreted as exemplary claim language which does not further limit the scope of the claimed invention.
Regarding claims 60-64, 67, 68, 72, and 78, the claims are rejected based on their dependency on claim 59.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 59-66, 69-72, and 78 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Stolarski et al. (EP 1020504).
Regarding claim 59, Stolarski et al. teaches laminated product pieces (100, 200; decorative panels) each comprising an anterior or first superstructure surface material (101), a substrate or core material (102), and a posterior or second superstructure surface material (103) ([0014], Fig. 3A). The interface between the anterior surface material (101) and the substrate material (102), and the interface between the posterior surface material (103) and substrate material (102), may each include a layer of adhesive material to provide mechanical integrity in the resulting laminated product [0021]. The substrate material (102) in combination with the two adhesive layers and optionally at least part of the anterior and/or posterior surface materials can be taken to correspond to the claimed core which comprises at least three material layers.
As shown in Fig. 3A, a tongue and a groove (320, 323; first and second coupling parts) are arranged on respective first and second opposing edges of the laminated product pieces. As shown in Figs. 3A-3F, the tongue and groove are arranged to be coupled to provide a locking of two coupled pieces (100, 200) at seam (250), such that a part of the first upper edge portion on the first edge faces at least a part of the second upper edge portion to form a top seam (303) in between the laminated product pieces.
Stolarski et al. teaches that an adhesive (350; expandable material layer) may be deposited into the groove or onto the tongue of the laminate pieces, where the adhesive is adapted to expand and fill all gaps of the seam (250) such that all edge surfaces of the laminate pieces (100, 200) are engaged with adhesive ([0035]-[0036], Figs. 3B-3F). The adhesive may be a one-component moisture-cured urethane which undergoes a foaming reaction that fills free spaces between the materials to be joined upon interaction with water [0031]. The adhesive is therefore configured to expand or swell upon contact with moisture to create or improve a seal between panels in a coupled condition. As shown in Figs. 3D and 3F, the adhesive (350) is at least partially exposed at the interface in between the two pieces (100, 200) in the coupled position.
Stolarski et al. further teaches that the anterior surface material (101) may be a laminated product prepared using a decorative paper layer (decorative layer) having a desired pattern printed thereon which is impregnated with resin and laminated to one or more sheets of kraft paper impregnated with phenol formaldehyde resin, and an overlay layer (transparent and/or translucent protective layer) bonded to the surface of the decorative layer that will be exposed in the final product [0017]. The decorative paper layer and overlay layer together correspond to the claimed decorative top section. The overlay layer covering the decorative paper layer is understood to be transparent and/or translucent in order for the decorative pattern to be visible therethrough. The interface between the anterior surface material and the substrate material preferably includes a layer of adhesive material ([0021]), such that the anterior surface material is affixed to an upper side of the core.
Regarding claim 60, Stolarski et al. teaches all of the limitations of claim 59 above and further teaches that the foaming (i.e., expansion or swelling) of the adhesive not only fills any free spaces between the materials to be joined, but also squeezes out the seams over the anterior and posterior surfaces to completely seal any initial gaps [0031]. Stolarski et al. further teaches that gaps (including gap (303) at the top seam) present between the substrate materials when interfaced without the adhesive are filled by the adhesive which expands due to the foaming ([0033], [0035], Figs. 3A, 3F), such that the top seam is tightened by expansion or swelling of the adhesive.
Regarding claim 61, Stolarski et al. teaches all of the limitations of claim 59 above. As shown in Figs. 3B-3F, the adhesive (350; expandable material) is partially covered by the overlay layer (protective layer) of the anterior surface material (101) at least at one of the edges of the laminated product piece.
Regarding claim 62, Stolarski et al. teaches all of the limitations of claim 59 above. As noted above, Stolarski et al. teaches that the adhesive (350) may be deposited into the groove or onto the tongue of the pieces of material to be joined, where the adhesive is distributed throughout the seam (250) when the tongue of one panel is inserted into the groove ([0036], Figs. 3B-3D), such that the adhesive defines at least a part of the first and second upper edge portions.
Regarding claims 63 and 64, Stolarski et al. teaches all of the limitations of claim 59 above. As shown in Figs. 3C-3D, when the laminated product pieces (100, 200; panels) are in a coupled position, the adhesive (350) of one piece is partially covered and partially uncovered by an opposing upper edge of the adjacent panel.
Regarding claims 65 and 72, Stolarski et al. teaches all of the limitations of claim 59 above. As shown in Fig. 3B, the adhesive (350) is applied as an adhesive bead into the groove (323), such that the thickness of the adhesive varies along its length, i.e., in the lateral direction.
Regarding claim 66, Stolarski et al. teaches all of the limitations of claim 59 above. As noted above, Stolarski et al. teaches that the anterior surface material (101) may be a laminated product prepared using a decorative paper layer having a desired pattern printed thereon which is impregnated with resin and laminated to one or more sheets of kraft paper impregnated with phenol formaldehyde resin, and an overlay layer bonded to the surface of the decorative layer that will be exposed in the final product [0017]. The decorative paper layer and overlay layer together are taken to correspond to the claimed decorative top section. The one or more sheets of kraft paper impregnated with phenol formaldehyde resin are taken to correspond to the claimed upper layer, which comprises a moisture proof material.
Regarding claim 69, Stolarski et al. teaches all of the limitations of claim 59 above and further teaches that the substrate material (102) may be a medium density fiberboard (MDF), chipboard, or particle board [0020]. The substrate material (102) can be taken to correspond to the claimed lower layer (i.e., relative to the adhesive layer located at the interface between the substrate material and the anterior surface material), which comprises a moisture sensitive material.
Regarding claim 70, Stolarski et al. teaches all of the limitations of claim 59 above. As noted above, Stolarski et al. teaches that the decorative paper layer and the overlay layer of the anterior surface material (101) together are taken to correspond to the claimed decorative top section. The one or more sheets of kraft paper impregnated with phenol formaldehyde resin may therefore be taken to correspond to the claimed upper layer. Stolarski et al. further teaches that the posterior surface material (103) may also include layers of kraft paper impregnated with phenolic resin ([0018]), such that the phenolic resin-impregnated layers of kraft paper correspond to the claimed upper and lower layers which have an identical material composition.
Alternatively, the adhesive layers provided at the interface between the anterior surface material and the substrate material and at the interface between the posterior surface material and the substrate material can be taken to correspond to the claimed upper and lower layers which have an identical material composition. Stolarski et al. teaches that the adhesive material utilized for either or both of the interfaces is a urea-formaldehyde adhesive or a water-based adhesive such as PVA [0021].
Regarding claim 71, Stolarski et al. teaches all of the limitations of claim 59 above. As noted above, the substrate material (102), the adhesive material, and the posterior surface material (103) may be taken together to correspond to the claimed core. The substrate material may include medium density fiberboard (MDF), chipboard, particleboard, strand board, water board, plywood, and the like [0020]. The adhesive material utilized for either or both of the interfaces may be a urea-formaldehyde adhesive or a water-based adhesive such as PVA [0021]. The posterior surface material may include impregnated paper layers, protective layers, a high pressure decorative laminate backer, or the like [0018].
When the substrate material or the adhesive layer arranged between the substrate material and the anterior surface material is taken to correspond to the claimed upper layer, and the posterior surface material is taken to correspond to the claimed lower layer, the material composition of the upper layer differs from the material composition of the lower layer.
Regarding claim 78, Stolarski et al. teaches all of the limitations of claim 59 above. As noted above, Stolarski et al. teaches a system of interconnected laminated product pieces (100, 200; panels), where the joined laminated products can be used for decorative flooring, counter and table tops, and wall panels (covering) ([0001], [0032], Figs. 3A-3F).
Claims 59, 60, 62-64, 68, 69, 71, 74-76, and 78 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kalwa et al. (EP 2918747, machine translation via EPO provided).
Regarding claim 59, Kalwa et al. teaches a panel (10; decorative panel) comprising a carrier substrate (100) and a decorative structure (110; decorative top section) applied to a substrate top surface (101; upper surface of the core) ([0033], Figs. 1-3). The decorative structure may comprise a decorative layer which carries a graphic decoration, which is laminated onto the substrate with one or more sealing layers or overlayers (transparent and/or translucent protective layer) [0033]. A common sealing layer consists of a melamine resin ([0033]), where such a sealing layer is understood to be transparent and/or translucent in order for the underlying graphic decoration to be visible therethrough.
Kalwa et al. teaches that each panel has profile elements (17, 18; first and second coupling parts) on end faces (15, 16; first and second edges) thereof in order to join two panels together ([0031], Figs. 1, 3). In particular, the profile elements (17, 18) are designed as a tongue and a groove (40, 30), respectively, where the tongue and groove are designed such that in the installed state (coupled condition), the panels are locked together [0031]. As shown in Figs. 1-3, when the panels are in the installed state, at least a part of the first upper edge portion on the end face (15) faces at least a part of a second upper edge portion on the end face (16) to form a top seam in between the panels.
The panels (10) each have chamfers or bevels (61, 62) on edges (21, 22) of the top surface (11) of the panel, where the surfaces (63, 64) of the chamfers are each coated with a chamfer sealing material (200; expandable material layer) ([0035], Fig. 2). The chamfer sealing material contains at least one superabsorbent material, which swells upon coming into contact with a polar liquid such as water or an aqueous solution [0036]. The swelling of the chamfer sealing material ensures that the joint (70) between the panels is sealed [0037]. The chamfer sealing material is therefore configured to expand or swell upon contact with moisture to create or improve a seal between panels in a coupled condition. As shown in Fig. 2, the chamfer sealing material (200) is at least partially exposed at the interface in between the panels (10) in an installed state. The carrier substrate (100) and the two layers of chamfer sealing material (200) are therefore taken together to correspond to the claimed core which comprises at least three material layers.
Regarding claim 60, Kalwa et al. teaches all of the limitations of claim 59 above. As noted above, the swelling of the chamfer sealing material (200; expandable material layer) ensures that the joint (70) between the panels is sealed [0037].
Regarding claim 62, Kalwa et al. teaches all of the limitations of claim 59 above. As shown in Fig. 2, the chamfer sealing materials (200) located on the chamfers (61, 62) define at least part of the first and second upper edge portions of the panel.
Regarding claims 63 and 64, Kalwa et al. teaches all of the limitations of claim 59 above. As noted above, Kalwa et al. teaches that swelling of the chamfer sealing material (200) prevents both the penetration of moisture and water into the substrate carriers (100) and into the area of the joint (70) between the panels (10) [0038]. Thus, when the chamfer sealing material (200) of each panel is swelled near the joint when the panels are in an installed state, the chamfer sealing material of one panel is partially covered by the chamfer sealing material of the adjacent panel. As shown in Fig. 2, when the panels (10) are in an installed state, the unexpanded chamfer sealing material (200) of one panel is left partially uncovered by the chamfer sealing material of the adjacent panel.
Regarding claim 68, Kalwa et al. teaches all of the limitations of claim 59 above. As noted above, Kalwa et al. teaches that the surfaces (63, 64) of the chamfers (61, 62) are each coated with a chamfer sealing material (200; expandable material layer), and that the swelling of the chamfer sealing materials ensures that the joint (70) between the panels is sealed ([0035], [0037], Fig. 2). The chamfer sealing materials on the opposing upper edge portions of two adjacent panels are therefore configured to co-act with each other.
Regarding claims 69 and 71, Kalwa et al. teaches all of the limitations of claim 59 above and further teaches that the carrier substrate (100; lower layer) can be, for example, a high-density fiberboard (HDF) ([0033]), which is a moisture sensitive material. The material composition of the chamfer sealing material (200; upper layer) therefore differs from the material composition of the carrier substrate (100; lower layer).
Regarding claim 74, Kalwa et al. teaches all of the limitations of claim 59 above. As shown in Fig. 3, the chamfers (61, 62; channel-shaped recessed portion) extend along the length of the respective upper edge portions such that, in the installed state, the adjoining upper edges of the two panels form a V-joint (70; groove). As shown in Fig. 2, a bottom portion of each chamfer, which connects to a side wall of the respective upper edge portion, is provided with a chamfer sealing material (200; expandable material layer).
Regarding claim 75, Kalwa et al. teaches all of the limitations of claim 59 above and further teaches that suitable superabsorbent materials usable as the chamfer sealing material include sodium polyacrylates and carboxymethyl guar gum ([0022]), which are hydrogel-forming water-swellable polymers.
Regarding claim 76, Kalwa et al. teaches all of the limitations of claim 59 above and further teaches that the chamfer sealing material may include color pigments which determine the optical appearance of the chamfers adapted to a desired decor ([0027], [0036]). The color of the chamfer sealing material layer is considered to be representative of at least one panel characteristic, as a desired meaning can be attributed to any color (e.g., a green color may be used to indicate recyclability or that the panel is eco-friendly).
Regarding claim 78, Kalwa et al. teaches all of the limitations of claim 59 above and further teaches that the panels (10) are interconnected as a floor covering (1) ([0028], [0038], Fig. 3).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries 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 67 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stolarski et al. (EP 1020504) as applied to claim 59 above.
Regarding claim 67, Stolarski et al. teaches all of the limitations of claim 59 above. Although Stolarski et al. teaches that the adhesive (expandable material layer) may be applied into the groove, onto the tongue, or upon any of the surfaces of the pieces of material to be joined ([0036]), the reference does not expressly teach that a plurality of the water-swellable adhesive layers are provided on at least one upper edge portion.
It would, however, have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the laminated product piece of Stolarski et al. by including a plurality of adhesive layers on the upper edge portion thereof in order to ensure that the swellable adhesive material is distributed satisfactorily throughout the seam when the tongue of one panel is inserted into the groove of another. It is well settled that duplication of parts holds no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. See MPEP 2144.04(VI)(B).
Claim 77 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stolarski et al. (EP 1020504) as applied to claim 59 above, and further in view of D’Hondt et al. (US 2018/0155934).
Regarding claim 77, Stolarski et al. teaches all of the limitations of claim 59 above but does not expressly teach that the first and second edges are impregnated with an impregnation agent.
D’Hondt et al. teaches a floor board (1) having a first pair of opposite edges (2, 3) and a second pair of opposite edges (4, 5), each pair of opposite edges having a pair of coupling parts (6) that form respective first and second locking systems ([0069]-[0070], Figs. 1-2). Similar to Stolarski et al., D’Hondt et al. teaches that a sealing agent (15) has been applied to one of the opposite side edges (2, 3) of the panel, where the sealing agent is based on a superabsorbing material that shields the joint between adjacent panels from moisture ingress ([0008], [0074]). D’Hondt et al. further teaches that the side edges (2, 3) are also treated with an impregnation agent (14) which provides for an additional binding of the wood fibers in the MDF/HDF material of the substrate, thus reducing swelling, in particular when applied in combination with the sealing agent ([0008], [0073], Fig. 2).
Given that Stolarski et al. also teaches that its substrate material (102) may be made of MDF ([0020]), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the laminated product piece of Stolarski et al. by treating the opposite first and second edges of the panel with an impregnating agent, as taught by D’Hondt et al., in order to enhance the binding of the wood fibers in the core substrate, thus improving the moisture resistance and reducing the occurrence of swelling.
Claims 67 and 73 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kalwa et al. (EP 2918747, machine translation via EPO provided) as applied to claim 59 above.
Regarding claim 67, Kalwa et al. teaches all of the limitations of claim 59 above. Although Kalwa et al. teaches that the surfaces of the chamfers are coated with a chamfer sealing material (200; expandable material layer) in order to ensure adequate protection against environmental influences ([0035]), the reference does not expressly teach that a plurality of layers of the chamfer sealing material are provided on an upper edge portion.
It would, however, have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the panel of Kalwa et al. by including a plurality of layers of chamfer sealing material on each chamfer in order to ensure that the surfaces of the chamfers are adequately protected against environmental influences. It is well settled that duplication of parts holds no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. See MPEP 2144.04(VI)(B).
Regarding claim 73, Kalwa et al. teaches all of the limitations of claim 59 above and further teaches that a suitable application quantity of the chamfer sealing material is 20 g/m2 ± 10 g/m2, where suitable superabsorbent materials usable as the chamfer sealing material include sodium polyacrylates, starches, carboxymethyl guar gum, and the like [0022]. The corresponding thickness of a dry film of superabsorbent material applied at an amount of 10 to 30 g/m2 overlaps the claimed range of 10 to 1000 microns. In the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05(I).
Claim 61 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kalwa et al. (EP 2918747, machine translation via EPO provided) as applied to claim 59 above, and further in view of Kogel (WO 2012/098115, machine translation via EPO provided).
Regarding claim 61, Kalwa et al. teaches all of the limitations of claim 59 above but does not expressly teach that the chamfer sealing material (200; expandable material layer) is partially covered by at least one protective layer at least at one of the edges of the panel.
Similar to Kalwa et al., Kogel teaches that in building waterproofing, sealing compounds that include water-swellable components are frequently used, where the water-soluble substances swell upon contact with water and thus fill the space to be sealed [0003]. However, with known sealing elements, premature or uncontrolled swelling is not uncommon, such that it may be necessary to remove the pre-assembled sealing element and replace it with a new, non-swollen sealing element [0004]. Kogel teaches that one solution to this problem is to coat the water-swellable material with a water-insoluble coating to protect it against premature swelling, so that a swelling process only starts after complete installation upon subsequent contact with water [0005].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the panel of Kalwa et al. by applying a protective coating layer to at least one of the edges of the panel such that the chamfer sealing material is partially covered by the protective coating, as taught by Kogel, in order to prevent premature or uncontrolled swelling of the sealing material.
Claim 77 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kalwa et al. (EP 2918747, machine translation via EPO provided) as applied to claim 59 above, and further in view of D’Hondt et al. (US 2018/0155934).
Regarding claim 77, Kalwa et al. teaches all of the limitations of claim 59 above but does not expressly teach that the first and second edges are impregnated with an impregnation agent.
D’Hondt et al. teaches a floor board (1) having a first pair of opposite edges (2, 3) and a second pair of opposite edges (4, 5), each pair of opposite edges having a pair of coupling parts (6) that form respective first and second locking systems ([0069]-[0070], Figs. 1-2). Similar to Kalwa et al., D’Hondt et al. teaches that a sealing agent (15) has been applied to one of the opposite side edges (2, 3) of the panel, where the sealing agent is based on a superabsorbing material that shields the joint between adjacent panels from moisture ingress ([0008], [0074]). D’Hondt et al. further teaches that the side edges (2, 3) are also treated with an impregnation agent (14) which provides for an additional binding of the wood fibers in the MDF/HDF material of the substrate, thus reducing swelling, in particular when applied in combination with the sealing agent ([0008], [0073], Fig. 2).
Given that Kalwa et al. also teaches that its carrier substrate (100) may be made of HDF ([0033]), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the panel of Kalwa et al. by treating the opposite first and second edges of the panel with an impregnating agent, as taught by D’Hondt et al., in order to enhance the binding of the wood fibers in the carrier substrate, thus improving the moisture resistance and reducing the occurrence of swelling.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Bergelin et al. (US 2007/0175148) teaches a set of moisture proof floor boards (1), each comprising a resilient surface layer (4) provided with a decorative groove (7) and/or a sealing means (51, 52) (Abstract, Figs. 2a-2d, 5a-6c). The resilient surface layer (4) may be substantially only one layer, or may comprise a transparent surface layer (16), an intermediate decorative layer (17), and a reinforcement layer (18) closest to the core ([0034]-[0038], Figs. 2a-2d). The sealing means (51, 52) of adjacent boards are configured to cooperate with one another, wherein one or both of the sealing means are provided with a sealing agent (53), such as an expandable sealing agent (53’) which expands when exposed to moisture ([0043], [0048]).
Loebel (US 2020/0087926) teaches a pair of adjacent panels (10) having mutually facing complementary retaining profiles (30, 40), wherein a first retaining profile (30) comprises a swellable sealing lip (100), where swelling of the sealing lip serves to protect the panel joints against ingress of liquids ([0022], [0071]-[0072], Figs. 1, 2A-2B). The swellable water-absorbing material may be a superabsorbent polymer, e.g., a material which forms hydrogels with water ([0027], [0029]).
Kleinschmidt (DE 102005058971, machine translation via EPO provided) teaches a jointing material for insertion into joints of floor coverings, wherein the jointing material comprises a superabsorbent swelling agent that swells to close the joint when moisture occurs, thus preventing further moisture from penetrating into the floor ([0001], [0010], [0020], Fig. 1).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to REBECCA L GRUSBY whose telephone number is (571) 272-1564. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:30 AM-5:30 PM.
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, Mark Ruthkosky can be reached at (571) 272-1291. 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.
/Rebecca L Grusby/Examiner, Art Unit 1785