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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-9, in the reply filed on 06/15/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 10-15 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 06/15/2026.
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 11/13/2024 is considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 2-9 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claims 2-9, the claims should be written as explicitly referring back to the panel as claimed by independent claim 1.
For example, claim 2 should be written as follows: “The panel element according to claim 1…”
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 1 through 9 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 1, phrase "such as" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Regarding claim 2, 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 2 recites the broad recitation “a bulk density below 2000kg/m3”, and the claim also recites “preferably below 1000 kg/m3” 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.
Regarding claim 3, 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 3 recites the broad recitation “width of 10-25mm”, and the claim also recites “preferably 15-20mm” 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.
Regarding claim 5, the limitation reciting “wherein a portion of the second substrate is exposed at a side edge of the panel element” is indefinite. Lines 9-10 of claim 1 require that the at least two opposing side edge portions of the panel element are formed solely by the first substrate. It is not clear how the side edge of the panel can later be said to have a portion of the second substrate exposed.
Regarding claim 7, the limitation reciting “wherein the distance material of the second substrate comprises an open cell material provided with a top layer and a bottom layer for closing a cell structure of the open cell material” is indefinite. It is unclear how the second substrate can be claimed to be both an open cell material and a closed cell material. Furthermore, it is unclear what the structural relationship of the top layer and bottom layer to the open cell material and to the first material is.
The structure of the claimed invention as required by claim 7 is indefinite and therefore the metes and bounds of the claim are unable to be determined and prior art cannot be applied.
Regarding claim 8, the limitation reciting “wherein when the second substrate is embedded in the first substrate, the distance material is provided with a channel extending in a normal direction to a major surface of the panel, wherein the first substrate extends through the channel” is indefinite. It is unclear what the claimed structure of the instant application with respect to claim 8 is and what a “channel” means regarding the structural relationship between the first substrate and the second substrate. It is not clear how the second substrate can be embedded in the first substrate and also comprise channels that the first substrate is in. It is not clear how the first substrate can both have the second substrate embedded therein but also the first substrate can extend through channels in the second substrate. It is not clear how the second substrate can be embedded in the first substrate and the first substrate can extend through the second substrate.
The structure of the claimed invention as required by claim 8 is indefinite and therefore the metes and bounds of the claim are unable to be determined and prior art cannot be applied.
Claims 4, 6, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph in light of their dependency from the rejected claims above.
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.
Claims 1, 4, 6 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Baert et al. (US 2021/0285230, cited on ISR and IDS).
Regarding claims 1 and 9, Baert et al. teaches a panel (200a-e; panel element) for a floor, wall or ceiling covering, comprising at least one core layer (201; first substrate) of a composite material comprised of a thermoplastic material and at least 20% by weight of mineral material, the core layer (201; first substrate) having a top surface and a bottom surface ([0004-0013, 0016-0023, 0027, 0035-0040]). Baert et al. teaches that the thermoplastic material of the core layer (201; first substrate) is polyvinyl chloride, polyethylene, polyurethane, acrylonitrile butadiene styrene and/or polypropylene and the mineral material is selected from the group consisting of magnesium oxide, calcium carbonate, chalk, clay, calcium silicate and/or talc ([0018-0019]). As shown in Figure 2c below, Baert et al. teaches that the panel (200a-e; panel element) further comprises cavities (202) embedded in the core layer (201; first substrate), wherein the cavities (202) are filled with a sound absorbing and/or sound proofing material (207; second substrate) ([0006, 0016]).
PNG
media_image1.png
135
378
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The sound absorbing and/or sound proofing material (207; second substrate) is a natural material such as bamboo, coco fibers, cork, mineral wool, fiberglass and/or polystyrene foam ([0016]), which would inherently have a bulk density lower than the composite material of the core layer (201; first substrate) as Baert et al. teaches similar materials for the core layer (201; first substrate) and sound absorbing and/or sound proofing material (207; second substrate) as taught by the instant application (see pg-pub [0022-0028, 0057, 0111-0112]). Baert et al. further teaches that the panel (200a-e; panel element) comprises at least one pair of opposing side edges comprising complementary coupling parts configured for mutual coupling of adjacent panels, such as interlocking coupling parts ([0010]).
Regarding claim 4, Baert et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above, and shown by Figure 1a, Baert et al. teaches that the core layer (101; first substrate) forms cavities (102) wherein sound absorbing and/or sound proofing material (207; second substrate) will be formed ([0035-0040]), such that the core layer (101; first substrate) forms a top layer and a bottom layer with the sound absorbing and/or sound proofing material (207; second substrate) arranged therebetween.
Regarding claim 6, Baert et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 1 and further teaches that the sound absorbing and/or sound proofing material (207; second substrate) is a natural material such as bamboo, coco fibers, cork, mineral wool, fiberglass and/or polystyrene foam ([0016]).
Claims 1, 2, 4, 6 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sun (CN 108560811A, cited on ISR and IDS, Machine Translation via EPO provided).
Regarding claims 1, 6 and 9, Sun teaches a PVC polymer fiber lightweight partition wall panel (panel element) comprising a main frame (1; first substrate) made of polyvinyl chlorine and calcium carbonate (mineral material), wherein the main frame (1; first substrate) forms a lattice box structure, each box being filled with polyurethane foam filler (2; second substrate), such that the polyurethane foam filler is embedded within the main frame (1; first substrate). See Figure 2 reproduced below ([0006-0010, 0017, 0038, 0041, 0049-0050, 0058]).
PNG
media_image2.png
160
512
media_image2.png
Greyscale
As shown by Figure 1 and Figure 2 (see above), the PVC polymer fiber lightweight partition wall panel (panel element) comprises at least two opposing side edge portions formed solely by the main frame (1; first substrate) and comprising complementary coupling members for connecting adjacent panels ([0019-0020, 0037, 0045-0046]). With respect to the main frame (1; first substrate) the calcium carbonate comprises at least 40-42 wt% based on the total parts by weight of the components as set forth in [0007]), which is encompassed by the claimed range of “at least 20% by weight”([0006-0010, 0017, 0038, 0041, 0049-0050, 0058]).
The polyurethane foam filler (2; second substrate) which would inherently have a bulk density lower than the main frame (1; first substrate) made of polyvinyl chlorine and calcium carbonate (mineral material) as Sun teaches similar materials for the main frame (1; first substrate) and polyurethane foam filler (2; second substrate) as taught by the instant application (see pg-pub [0022-0028, 0057, 0111-0112]).
Regarding claim 2, Sun teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above, and as previously stated, teaches that the material embedded within the lattice boxes of the main frame (first substrate) is polyurethane foam filler (2; second substrate) ([0006-0010, 0017, 0038, 0041, 0049-0050, 0058]), the reference does not expressly teach that the bulk density of the polyurethane foam filler (2; second substrate) is below 2000 kg/m3 or preferably below 1000 kg/m3 as claimed.
The instant application teaches that polymeric foam is an appropriate option for the second material, thus meeting the claimed bulk density (see pg-pub [0057]). As Sun teaches a polyurethane foam film (i.e. polymeric foam) as the second substrate, it would inherently meet the limitation below 2000 kg/m3 or preferably below 1000 kg/m3.
Regarding claim 4, Sun teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above, and further teaches, as shown in Figures 1 and 2, that the polyurethane foam filler (2; second substrate) is embedded in the main frame (first substrate), such that the main frame (first substate) forms a top layer and a bottom layer with the polyurethane foam filler (2; second substrate) therebetween.
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.
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.
Claims 2, 3 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baert et al. (US 2021/0285230, cited on ISR and IDS).
Regarding claim 2, Baert et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above, and while the reference teaches that the sound absorbing and/or sound proofing material (207; second substrate) is a natural material such as bamboo, coco fibers, cork, mineral wool, fiberglass and/or polystyrene foam ([0016]), the reference does not expressly teach that the sound absorbing and/or sound proofing material (207; second substrate) has a bulk density below 2000 kg/m3 or preferably below 1000 kg/m3. Baert et al. teaches that the sound absorbing material contributes to the sound absorbing character and acoustic character of the panel, wherein the cavities (202) embedded in the core layer (201; first substrate) are at least partially fill or at least one cavity (202) can be completely filled with the sound absorbing and/or sound proofing material (207; second substrate) ([0016]).
As both Baert et al. and the instant application teach similar materials for the sound absorbing and/or sound proofing material (207; second substrate), 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 amount of sound absorbing and/or sound proofing material (207; second substrate) within the cavities (202) in the core layer (201; first substrate) to have a bulk density within the claimed range based upon the desired sound absorbing and acoustic characteristics for the resultant panel.
Regarding claim 3, Baert et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above, and while the reference teaches the side edge portions of the panel are formed solely by the core layer (201; first substrate) as shown in Figure 2c reproduced above, the reference does not expressly teach the width of the side edges of the first substrate is 10-25mm, preferably 15-20mm as claimed.
Such a modification would have been obvious, however, to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention as an obvious modification based upon the desired dimensions of the panel for the environment in which it will be used. As stated in MPEP 2144.04 (IV)(A), it has been held that wherein the only different between the prior art and the claims was 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 was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.
Regarding claim 5, Baert et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above. While the reference does not expressly teach that the sound absorbing and/or sound proofing material (207; second substrate) is exposed at a side edge of the panel element, such a modification would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art based on the desired amount of sound absorption/proofing properties for the resultant panel. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify either the placement of the cavities (202) to be embedded anywhere in the surface of the core layer (201; first substrate) as it has been held that configuration is a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration was significant (see MPEP 2144.04(IV)(B)).
Claims 3 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sun (CN 108560811A, cited on ISR and IDS, Machine Translation via EPO provided).
Regarding claim 3, Sun teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above, and while the reference teaches the side edge portions of the PVC polymer fiber lightweight partition wall panel (panel element) are formed solely by the main frame (first substrate) as shown in Figures 1 and 2reproduced above, the reference does not expressly teach the width of the side edges of the main frame (first substrate) is 10-25mm, preferably 15-20mm as claimed.
Such a modification would have been obvious, however, to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention as an obvious modification based upon the desired dimensions of the panel for the environment in which it will be used. As stated in MPEP 2144.04 (IV)(A), it has been held that wherein the only different between the prior art and the claims was 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 was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.
Regarding claim 5, Sun teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above. While the reference does not expressly teach that the polyurethane foam filler (2; second substrate) is exposed at a side edge of the PVC polymer fiber lightweight partition wall panel (panel element), such a modification would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art based on the desired amount of sound absorption/proofing properties for the resultant PVC polymer fiber lightweight partition wall panel (panel element). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify either the placement of the boxes to be embedded anywhere in the surface of the main frame (first substrate) as it has been held that configuration is a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration was significant (see MPEP 2144.04(IV)(B)).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LAURA POWERS whose telephone number is (571)270-5624. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday, 10:00AM-3:00PM.
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.
LAURA POWERS
Examiner
Art Unit 1785
/LAURA C POWERS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1785
Prosecution Insights