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 .
Examiner’s Note
The Examiner acknowledges the amendments of claims 1 – 2, the addition of new claim 22, and the cancellation of claim 3.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 & 22 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 1 & 22 recite “kg/m3” which should be kg/m3”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1 – 2, 4 – 10, 12, 14 – 15, 17 – 18, 20, & 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baert et al. (US 2015/0368912 A1), in view of Baert et al. (US 2019/0383031 A1), Schwitte et al. (DK 2740596 T3)(2018), Desmet (WO 03/028994 A1), Baert et al. (US 2019/0040635 A1), and Kladovasilakis et al., “Architectured Materials for Additive Manufacturing: A Comprehensive Review,” Materials 2022, August 2022.
With regard to claim 1, Baert et al. (‘912) teach a panel suitable for a floor or wall covering, comprising a central layer, at least one top layer comprising fibers (paragraphs [0023], [0048], & [0068]), and a buffer layer situated between the central layer and the top layer (paragraphs [0009] & [0034]). The buffer layer may be composed of cork or solid foam material (i.e., “at least one cellular structure”) and serves the purpose of imparting shock absorbing qualities and sound dampening effect to the panel (paragraph [0034]).
Baert et al. (‘912) do not teach the density of the top layer is at least 1000 kg/m3.
Baert et al. (‘031) teach a floor or wall covering panel comprising a rigid top layer. A support layer within a top layer has a density of at least 1200 kg/m3 (paragraph [0025] & [0095]) for achieving a top layer with the desired rigidity and resistance to indentation (paragraphs [0004] & [0026]).
Therefore, based on the teachings of Baert et al. (‘031), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to form a top layer of sufficient rigidity and resistance to indentation when said top layer has a density of at least 1200 kg/m3, which is within Applicant’s claimed range of 1000 kg/m3.
Baert et al. (‘912) do not explicitly teach the at least one top layer has a Shore D hardness in the range of 60 – 90.
Schwitte et al. teach a panel main body, such as a floor covering panel (pg. 1, lines 2 – 3), comprising a top layer formed of a decorative paper layer, a functional layer, and an outer wear layer (pg. 3, lines 25 – 30). The outer wear layer is a crosslinked polymer that has a Shore hardness 90A (i.e., Shore A hardness of 90) to 80D (i.e. Shore D hardness of 80) for providing the panel with scratch resistance and low abrasion. The functional layer is a crosslinked polymer that has a Shore hardness of 50A to 90D for absorbing mechanical shocks and sound dampening effect (pg. 4, lines 15 – 34 & pg. 13, lines 20 – 30).
Therefore, based on the teachings of Schwitte et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to form the top layer taught by Baert et al. (‘912) using a crosslinked polymer (resin) with a shore hardness in the range of 50A – 90D, which includes Applicant’s claimed range of 60D – 90D, for providing the floor panel with the desired scratch resistance, low abrasion, absorbing mechanical shocks, and a sound dampening effect. As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, 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); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Baert et al. (‘912) do not explicitly teach a flexibility of 50 mm – 350 mm in a mandrel test according to ASTM F137.
Desmet teaches a flexible layered sheet with a veneer, such as for a wall covering (pg. 1, lines 4 – 5). Flexibility is needed for applying the sheet by hand (pg. 2, lines 31 – 35). The flexible layered sheet comprises a woodlike veneer top layer (2) comprising fibers. A flexing treatment renders the layered sheet sufficiently flexible to wind it up afterwards as a cylindrical coil, e.g. on a mandrel with an outer diameter of at least 20 cm (50 mm) (pg. 5, lines 5 – 20 & pg. 7, lines 10 – 16).
Therefore, based on the teachings of Dermet et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to form the top layer with a flexibility of at least 50 mm, which includes Applicant’s claimed range of 50 – 350 mm, via a mandrel test in order to be sufficiently flexible for application by hand of the panel covering taught by Baert et al. (‘912). As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, 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); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Baert et al. (‘912) teach the central (“core”) layer is a composite layer comprising 30 wt% or more of filler, such as calcium carbonate (i.e., “mineral”), which includes Applicant’s claimed range of 60 wt.% or more mineral material. The central layer also contains a thermoplastic material (i.e., “binder”) (paragraph [0032]), such as polyvinyl chloride (PVC) and/or polyethylene (PE) (paragraph [0016]).
Baert et al. do not explicitly teach the central layer (i.e., “core”) has a density of 1600 – 2100 kg/m3.
Baert et al. (‘635) teach a floor or wall covering comprising a panel (paragraph [0001]), wherein a core layer of said panel has a density of 1500 – 2200 kg/m3, and more preferably 1900 to 2050 kg/m3, for forming a thin panel with a desired rigidity (paragraph [0016]) (paragraph [0016]).
Therefore, based on the teachings of Baert et al. (‘635), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art for form the central layer taught by Baert et al. (‘912) with a density of 1900 to 2050 kg/m3, which is within Applicant’s claimed range of 1600 – 2100 kg/m3, in order to achieve a thin panel with desired rigidity.
Baert et al. (‘912) do not teach the cellular structure of the compressive layer (i.e., “buffer layer”) that serves the purpose of providing impact absorption and/or transformation comprises a 2.5-dimensional architected material which is a 2.5-dimensional continuous lattice configuration formed by n folding points and p cell walls repeated at least once in at least one axis.
Kladovasilakis et al. teach foams have an ultra-low relative density (<5%) are limited with structural integrity regardless of the construction material. However, architected materials defined as lattice structures (10 – 50% relative density) are preferable for structure or energy absorption applications (Sect. 2.1, pg. 3). The majority of 2.5 D lattices and 3D strut lattices influence the relative density (Sect. 2.1, pg. 4). The 2.5D structures are the most simplistic form of periodic architecture materials and consist of sheet networks, which are designed from 2D geometrical shapes that are extruded in the third dimensions, such as the honeycombs (Sect. 2.2, pg. 5, & Fig. 1). Honeycomb lattices formed from sheets have a high porosity and surface area to volume ratio, which is preferentially for low thermal conductivity and thermal insulation (Fig. 1 & pg. 14). As shown in Fig. 1 below, the 2.5D honeycomb lattice structure is formed of folded sheets, comprising n folding points and p cell walls repeated in at least one axis.
PNG
media_image1.png
594
892
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Therefore, based on the teachings of Kladovasilakis et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute the ultra-low relative density foam compressive layer taught by Baert et al. (‘912) with a cellular structure of higher relative density, such as 2.5D honeycomb lattice structure formed of folded sheets comprising n folding points and p cell walls repeated in at least one axis, because a 2.5D honeycomb is not limited to any particular structural integrity, has preferred energy absorption, and thermal insulation properties.
Baert et al. (‘912) do not teach the density of the buffer layer (i.e., “cellular structure”) of the buffer layer is in the range of 25 – 350 kg/m3.
However, based on the teachings of Kladovasilakis et al. discussed above, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to adjust the density of the buffer layer through routine experimentation in order to achieve optimum energy absorption and thermal insulation properties. It has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
With regard to claim 2, as discussed above, Kladovasilakis et al. teach a 2.5D honeycomb lattice structure formed of folded sheets comprising n folding points and p cell walls repeated in at least one axis.
With regard to claim 4, Baert et al. (‘912) do not teach the buffer layer is one multicellular structure comprising a three dimensional (3D) architected material which is a three-dimensional lattice configuration formed by n nodes and p struts repeated at least once in at least 2 axes.
Kladovasilakis et al. teach foams have an ultra-low relative density (<5%) are limited with structural integrity regardless of the construction material. However, architected materials defined as lattice structures (10 – 50% relative density) are preferable for structure or energy absorption applications (Sect. 2.1, pg. 3). The majority of 2.5 D lattices and 3D strut lattices influence the relative density (Sect. 2.1, pg. 4). The 3D architecture material which is a 3-dimensional periodic architected material of either strut or sheet interconnected networks/surfaces (Sect. 2.2, pg. 5, & Fig. 1 shown above). As shown in Fig. 1 above, the 3D architected material is a three-dimensional lattice configuration formed by n nodes and p struts repeated at least once in 2 axes.
Therefore, based on the teachings of Kladovasilakis et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute the ultra-low relative density foam compressive layer taught by Baert et al. (‘912) with a cellular structure of higher relative density, such as 3D architecture material formed by n nodes and p struts repeated at least once in 2 axis, because a 3D architecture material is not limited to any particular structural integrity and has preferred energy absorption.
With regard to claim 5, Kladovasilakis et al. teach a bending-dominated material inherently has a Maxwell’s number of less than 0, wherein M is calculated based on the number of struts/beams (b) and nodes/joints (j) (pgs. 6 – 7 & equations 7 – 8 shown below). Therefore, a honeycomb structure (i.e., a 2.5-dimensional architected material) wherein when the honeycomb containing hexagonal cells (see Fig. 1), wherein each cell contains 6 joints and 6 walls (i.e., beams), M = -3 when calculated as a 2D structure and M = -6 when calculated as a 3D structure. Therefore, a 2.5-dimensional material of a honeycomb material containing hexagonal cells has a M < 0 and is a bending-dominated material. The bending dominated behavior allows the struts/surface of the structures to bend upon application of loads (pg. 6).
PNG
media_image2.png
66
646
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
62
638
media_image3.png
Greyscale
With regard to claim 6, as shown in Fig. 1 above, the 2.5-dimensional material is a hexagonal honeycomb lattice structure formed from folded sheets (Fig. 1).
With regard to claim 7, as shown in Fig. 1 above, the 2.5D honeycomb formed is from sheets wherein at least part of the cell walls comprise at least one folding point.
With regard to claim 8, Baert et al. (‘912) do not teach the buffer layer comprises at least one cellular structure comprising a gradient discrete structure (i.e., low-high-low, high-low-high), a gradient increasing structure and/or gradient decreasing structure defined over the thickness of the at least one buffer layer.
Kladovasilakis et al. teach architecture materials include functional graded lattice structure, wherein the cellular structure has a gradient increasing structure defined over a thickness of the material (Fig. 3(a)). This structure allows for the mechanical performance of the lattice structure to be improved without changing the overall mass, as the mean relative density of the structure remains the same (pg. 9).
PNG
media_image4.png
252
324
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Therefore, based on the teachings of Kladovasilakis et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to form a gradient increasing structure over the thickness of the buffer material for improving mechanical performance without changing the relative density.
With regard to claim 9, Baert et al. (‘912) do not teach the buffer layer comprises at least one anisotropic material.
Kladovasilakis et al. teach 2.5D structure is a honeycomb comprising cell walls that are oriented in a single direction (i.e., anisotropic) (Fig. 1). Architected materials defined as lattice structures (10 – 50% relative density), such as honeycombs, are preferable for structure or energy absorption applications (Sect. 2.1, pg. 3). Honeycomb lattices formed from sheets have a high porosity and surface area to volume ratio, which is preferentially for low thermal conductivity and thermal insulation (Fig. 1 & pg. 14).
Therefore, based on the teachings of Kladovasilakis et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to form the buffer layer as a honeycomb (i.e., an anisotropic material) for energy absorption and thermal insulation applications, which are desirable properties for the floor covering of Baert et al. (‘912).
With regard to claim 10, Baert et al. (‘912) do not teach the panel contains multiple buffer layers each comprising at least one cellular structure.
Kladovasilakis et al. teach an architected material with a hybridized lattice structure (i.e., multiple layers each having a different cellular structure) (Fig. 3(c)). This structure improves the mechanical response of the structure and exploit unique physical, mechanical, or aesthetic characteristics. Additionally, hybridization lattice structures can be used in impact applications with remarkable results by maximizing the energy absorption of the whole structure with the combination of a bending-dominated lattice structure with a stretching-dominated lattice structure (pg. 9).
PNG
media_image5.png
208
634
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Therefore, based on the teachings of Kladovasilakis et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to form the buffer layer taught by Baert et al. as a hybrid lattice structure of multiple buffer layers, wherein each buffer layer comprises a different cellular structure such that the hybrid lattice structure comprises both bending-dominated and stretching-dominated structures for maximizing energy absorption.
With regard to claim 12, as discussed above for claim 1, Schwitte et al. teach the top layer has a Shore hardness in the range of 50A – 90D, which includes Applicant’s claimed range of 70D – 85D.
With regard to claim 14, Baert et al. (‘912) teach the at least one top layer has a thickness of 0.5 mm (paragraph [0051]), which is within Applicant’s claimed range of 0.05 – 5 mm.
With regard to claim 15, Baert et al. (‘912) teach the at least one top layer comprises a cured resin (i.e. “at least one polymer material”) and preferably at least one mineral filler, a multitude of plies of resin impregnated cellulose-based layer, such as paper (paragraphs [0018] – [0019]). The top layer is produced with a decorative surface, such as a pattern of color (i.e. a desired veneer) or relief pattern that matches a chosen decorative pattern (paragraphs [0022], [0030], & [0068]).
With regard to claim 17, Baert et al. (‘912) teach the central (“core layer”) layer comprises 30 wt.% or more of filler for imparting rigidity to the central layer (paragraph [0032]). As discussed above for claim 16, Applicant’s claimed range of filler content is within the range of filler content taught by filler. Furthermore, Baert et al. teach the same composition of the filler particles (i.e. calcium carbonate) as the mineral material disclosed in Applicant’s specification (see spec, paragraph [0053]). Therefore, the central layer taught by Baert et al. (‘912) must inherently have the same rigidity as recited by Applicant (i.e. below 3,500 MPa according to EN 310).
MPEP 2112 [R-3] states:
The express, implicit, and inherent disclosures of a prior art reference may be relied upon in the rejection of claims under 35 U.S.C. 102 or 103. “The inherent teaching of a prior art reference, a question of fact, arises both in the context of anticipation and obviousness.” In re Napier, 55 F.3d 610, 613, 34 USPQ2d 1782, 1784 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (affirmed a 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection based in part on inherent disclosure in one of the references). See also In re Grasselli, 713 F.2d 731, 739, 218 USPQ 769, 775 (Fed. Cir. 1983).
It has been held that where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or are produced by identical or a substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness will be considered to have been established over functional limitations that stem from the claimed structure. In re Best, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977), In re Spada, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). The prima facie case can be rebutted by evidence showing that the prior art products do not necessarily possess the characteristics of the claimed products. In re Best, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977).
With regard to claim 18, Baert et al. (‘912) teach the central layer is an extruded sheet material having a foam structure (paragraphs [0027] & [0066]). Foam inherently contains a plurality of pores (i.e., cavities). Therefore, at least part of an upper surface or lower surface of the central layer comprises a plurality of cavities.
With regard to claim 20, Baert et al. (‘912) teach a floor or wall covering composed of a plurality of panels (paragraphs [0003], [0035], & [0064]) according to the limitations of claim 1 discussed above.
With regard to claim 22, Baert et al. (‘912) teach a panel suitable for a floor or wall covering, comprising a central layer, at least one top layer comprising fibers (paragraphs [0023], [0048], & [0068]), and a buffer layer situated between the central layer and the top layer (paragraphs [0009] & [0034]). The buffer layer may be composed of cork or solid foam material (i.e., “at least one cellular structure”) and serves the purpose of imparting shock absorbing qualities and sound dampening effect to the panel (paragraph [0034]).
Baert et al. (‘912) do not teach the density of the top layer is at least 1000 kg/m3.
Baert et al. (‘031) teach a floor or wall covering panel comprising a rigid top layer. A support layer within a top layer has a density of at least 1200 kg/m3 (paragraph [0025] & [0095]) for achieving a top layer with the desired rigidity and resistance to indentation (paragraphs [0004] & [0026]).
Therefore, based on the teachings of Baert et al. (‘031), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to form a top layer of sufficient rigidity and resistance to indentation when said top layer has a density of at least 1200 kg/m3, which is within Applicant’s claimed range of 1000 kg/m3.
Baert et al. (‘912) do not explicitly teach the at least one top layer has a Shore D hardness in the range of 60 – 90.
Schwitte et al. teach a panel main body, such as a floor covering panel (pg. 1, lines 2 – 3), comprising a top layer formed of a decorative paper layer, a functional layer, and an outer wear layer (pg. 3, lines 25 – 30). The outer wear layer is a crosslinked polymer that has a Shore hardness 90A (i.e., Shore A hardness of 90) to 80D (i.e. Shore D hardness of 80) for providing the panel with scratch resistance and low abrasion. The functional layer is a crosslinked polymer that has a Shore hardness of 50A to 90D for absorbing mechanical shocks and sound dampening effect (pg. 4, lines 15 – 34 & pg. 13, lines 20 – 30).
Therefore, based on the teachings of Schwitte et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to form the top layer taught by Baert et al. (‘912) using a crosslinked polymer (resin) with a shore hardness in the range of 50A – 90D, which includes Applicant’s claimed range of 60D – 90D, for providing the floor panel with the desired scratch resistance, low abrasion, absorbing mechanical shocks, and a sound dampening effect. As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, 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); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Baert et al. (‘912) do not explicitly teach a flexibility of 50 mm – 350 mm in a mandrel test according to ASTM F137.
Desmet teaches a flexible layered sheet with a veneer, such as for a wall covering (pg. 1, lines 4 – 5). Flexibility is needed for applying the sheet by hand (pg. 2, lines 31 – 35). The flexible layered sheet comprises a woodlike veneer top layer (2) comprising fibers. A flexing treatment renders the layered sheet sufficiently flexible to wind it up afterwards as a cylindrical coil, e.g. on a mandrel with an outer diameter of at least 20 cm (50 mm) (pg. 5, lines 5 – 20 & pg. 7, lines 10 – 16).
Therefore, based on the teachings of Dermet et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to form the top layer with a flexibility of at least 50 mm, which includes Applicant’s claimed range of 50 – 350 mm, via a mandrel test in order to be sufficiently flexible for application by hand of the panel covering taught by Baert et al. (‘912). As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, 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); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Baert et al. (‘912) teach the central (“core”) layer is a composite layer comprising 30 wt% or more of filler, such as calcium carbonate (i.e., “mineral”), which includes Applicant’s claimed range of 60 wt.% or more mineral material. The central layer also contains a thermoplastic material (i.e., “binder”) (paragraph [0032]), such as polyvinyl chloride (PVC) and/or polyethylene (PE) (paragraph [0016]).
Baert et al. do not explicitly teach the central layer (i.e., “core”) has a density of 1600 – 2100 kg/m3.
Baert et al. (‘635) teach a floor or wall covering comprising a panel (paragraph [0001]), wherein a core layer of said panel has a density of 1500 – 2200 kg/m3, and more preferably 1900 to 2050 kg/m3, for forming a thin panel with a desired rigidity (paragraph [0016]) (paragraph [0016]).
Therefore, based on the teachings of Baert et al. (‘635), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art for form the central layer taught by Baert et al. (‘912) with a density of 1900 to 2050 kg/m3, which is within Applicant’s claimed range of 1600 – 2100 kg/m3, in order to achieve a thin panel with desired rigidity.
Baert et al. (‘912) teach the cellular structure of the buffer layer may be a foam material (i.e., “foamed structure”). Baert et al. (‘912) do not teach the cellular structure of the compressive layer (i.e., buffer layer) that serves the purpose of providing impact absorption and/or transformation comprises a 2.5-dimensional architected material which is a 2.5-dimensional continuous lattice configuration formed by n folding points and p cell walls repeated at least once in at least one axis.
Kladovasilakis et al. teach foams have an ultra-low relative density (<5%) are limited with structural integrity regardless of the construction material. However, architected materials defined as lattice structures (10 – 50% relative density) are preferable for structure or energy absorption applications (Sect. 2.1, pg. 3). The majority of 2.5 D lattices and 3D strut lattices influence the relative density (Sect. 2.1, pg. 4). The 2.5D structures are the most simplistic form of periodic architecture materials and consist of sheet networks, which are designed from 2D geometrical shapes that are extruded in the third dimensions, such as the honeycombs (Sect. 2.2, pg. 5, & Fig. 1). Honeycomb lattices formed from sheets have a high porosity and surface area to volume ratio, which is preferentially for low thermal conductivity and thermal insulation (Fig. 1 & pg. 14). As shown in Fig. 1 below, the 2.5D honeycomb lattice structure is formed of folded sheets, comprising n folding points and p cell walls repeated in at least one axis.
PNG
media_image1.png
594
892
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Therefore, based on the teachings of Kladovasilakis et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute the ultra-low relative density foam compressive layer taught by Baert et al. (‘912) with a cellular structure of higher relative density, such as 2.5D honeycomb lattice structure formed of folded sheets comprising n folding points and p cell walls repeated in at least one axis, because a 2.5D honeycomb is not limited to any particular structural integrity, has preferred energy absorption, and thermal insulation properties.
Baert et al. (‘912) do not teach the density of the buffer layer (i.e., “cellular structure”) of the buffer layer is in the range of 25 – 350 kg/m3.
However, based on the teachings of Kladovasilakis et al. discussed above, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to adjust the density of the buffer layer through routine experimentation in order to achieve optimum energy absorption and thermal insulation properties. It has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Claim(s) 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baert et al. (‘912), Baert et al. (‘031), Schwitte et al., Desmet, Baert et al. (‘635), & Kladovasilakis et al., as applied to claim 1 above, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Chen (US 2022/056704 A1).
With regard to claim 11, Baert et al. (‘912) do not teach the thickness of the at least one buffer layer.
Chen teaches a floor board comprising a main body layer and a buffer lay adhered to the back surface of the floor wallboard main body layer. The buffer layer can play the roles of balancing, buffering, and silencing for the floor (paragraph [0010]). A thickness of 0.5 – 5 mm (paragraph [0007]), which overlaps with Applicant’s claimed buffer layer thickness range of 3 – 8 mm.
Therefore, based on the teachings of Chen, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to form the buffer layer taught by Baert et al. (‘912) of a thickness in the range of 0.5 – 5 mm, which overlaps with Applicant’s claimed range of 3 – 8 mm, for providing desired properties such as balancing, buffering, and silencing to a floor covering panel.
As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, 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); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Claim(s) 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baert et al. (‘912), Baert et al. (‘031), Schwitte et al., Desmet, Baert et al. (‘635), & Kladovasilakis et al., as applied to claim 1 above, as further evidenced by Boquillon et al. (WO 2019/197393 A1).
With regard to claim 13, Baert et al. (‘912) do not explicitly teach the at least one top layer has a modulus of elasticity up to 5,500 MPa according to EN 310.
Baert et al. (‘912) teach the at least one top layer is rigid, but do not explicitly teach the elastic modulus of said at least one top layer.
Boquillon et al. teach a rigid flooring cover comprising a panel comprising a core layer (30) and a top layer composed of a wear layer (32) and a decorative layer (34) (paragraph [0032]). The term “rigid” is meant to imply a relatively high modulus of elasticity (measured according to EN 3010), e.g. greater than 1000 MPa, preferably greater than 200 MPa, more preferably greater than 4000 MPa (paragraph [0009]), which is within Applicant’s claimed range of “up to 5,500 MPa). Rigid flooring panels facilitate installation and better bridge slight unevenness (paragraph [0008]), as well as exhibit less breakage (paragraphs [0004] & [0035]) compared to resilient floor panels.
As such, based on the teachings of Boquillon et al., one of ordinary skill in the art would consider the “rigid top layer” for a floor covering panel as taught by Baert et al. (‘912) to inherently have an elastic modulus of greater than 1000 MPa.
MPEP 2112 [R-3] states:
The express, implicit, and inherent disclosures of a prior art reference may be relied upon in the rejection of claims under 35 U.S.C. 102 or 103. “The inherent teaching of a prior art reference, a question of fact, arises both in the context of anticipation and obviousness.” In re Napier, 55 F.3d 610, 613, 34 USPQ2d 1782, 1784 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (affirmed a 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection based in part on inherent disclosure in one of the references). See also In re Grasselli, 713 F.2d 731, 739, 218 USPQ 769, 775 (Fed. Cir. 1983).
Claim(s) 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baert et al. (‘912), Baert et al. (‘031), Schwitte et al., Desmet, Baert et al. (‘635), & Kladovasilakis et al., as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Patki et al. (EP 3404165)(2018).
With regard to claim 19, Baert et al. (‘912) fail to explicitly teach at least one reinforcing layer, wherein the at least one reinforcing layer is situated between the at least one top layer and the at least one buffer layer.
Baert et al. (‘965) teach a reinforcing layer between a top layer and a core layer (paragraphs [0008] – [0009]). A reinforcing layer provides improved acoustic (sound absorbing) and impact resistance properties to the panel (paragraph [0009]). The additional layer(s) may also have a reinforcing functionality and/or a stabilizing functionality (paragraph [0028]). A buffer layer is provided on a bottom side of a top layer for imparting shock absorbing qualities in case of heavy impact on the top surface of the panel (paragraph [0036]).
Patki et al. teach a floor covering comprising a support layer, a reinforcing layer, and a decorative layer (abstract, paragraph [0020]), wherein a reinforcing layer is preferably made of a material showing a Young’s (elastic) modulus higher than the Young’s modulus of the decorative layer (e.g., 2x – 3x greater). In this way, a reinforcing layer is provided that increases the rigidity of the decorative layer to define a hindrance to the propagation of cracks. A reinforcing layer is bonded to the decorative layer by means of an adhesive to the lower surface of the decorative layer (paragraph [0027] – [0029]).
Therefore, based on the teachings of Patki et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to adhere a reinforcing layer to the underside of the decorative layer, such that the reinforcing layer is between the buffer layer taught by Baert et al. (‘912) and the top layer, for hindering the propagation of cracks in the floor covering panel.
Claim(s) 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baert et al. (‘912), Baert et al. (‘031), Schwitte et al., Desmet, Baert et al. (‘635), & Kladovasilakis et al., as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Bhat et al. (“Design of tessellation based load transfer mechanisms in additively manufactured lattice structures to obtain hybrid responses,” Additive Manufacturing 76 (2023) 103774, Published Sept 2023).
With regard to claim 21, Baert et al. (‘912) do not teach the 3-D architected material is buckling-oriented, bending-dominated and/or has a Maxwell’s Number of ≤ -2, and wherein the 3-D architected material is chosen from the group of a hexagonal lattice structure, a folded structure and/or pentamode metamaterials.
Kladovasilakis et al. teach the 3-dimensional architected structures include strut (i.e., lattice) structures and sheet structures. However, Kladovasilakis et al. do not explicitly teach hexagonal lattice structures (hcp).
Bhat et al. teach additively manufactured lattice structures, such as hexagonal close-packed (“hcp”) structure (i.e., a 3-dimenstional “hexagonal lattice”), with desirable load bearing properties. HCP tessellated structures were found to be bending dominated (pg. 10 & Table 4). HCP tessellated lattice structures showed to have excellent specific energy absorption compared to that of other truss-based bending dominated structures (pg. 15, Figs. 15c & Table 4).
Therefore, based on the teachings of Bhat et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to form the buffer layer as a hexagonal close-packed (i.e., “hexagonal lattice”) structure that is bending-dominated because it has been shown to have excellent specific energy absorption properties compared to other truss-based bending dominated structures.
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues, “The Office Action rejects claims 1 – 2, 12, 14 – 15, 17 – 18, and 20 as under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2015/0368912A1 to Baert et al. (Baert I), in view of US 2022/0074211 A1 (Baert), and US 2019/0383031 to Baert et al. (Baert II), DK 2740596 T3 to Schwitte et al. (Schwitte), WO 03/028994 A1 to Desmet (Desmet), and US 2019/00406351 A1 to Baert et et al. (Baert III).
“1The Office Action recites the publication number is ‘US 2019/004063’ and shortens the reference to the ‘’063 reference’. But Applicant believes the intended reference is US 2019/0040635” (Remarks, Pg. 6).
EXAMINER’S RESPONSE: Applicant’s assumption was correct. The current office has corrected this reference citation error.
Applicant argues, “Regarding the structural characteristics of the core layer as claimed in amended claim 1, Applicant respectfully disagrees with the Office and asserts that one of ordinary skill in the art would not be motivated to substitute the lightweight flexiblecore layer of Baert I with the higher density core layer taught in Baert III as doing so would defeat the purpose the Baert I disclosure as a whole. See, e.g. Office Action, p. 6. The purpose and teachings of Baert I, as a whole, and regardless of the preferred embodiment disclosed in paragraphs [0055 – 0059], is to achieve a rigid top – flexible/lightweight core -rigid bottom construction for floor panel” (Remarks, Pgs. 10 – 11).
“Furthermore, and consistent with the inventive purpose, Baert I teaches that the ‘central layer 10 is composed of a foam structure.’ Baert I, [0066].
“In contrast, Baert III teaches a rigid-high-density core, and expressly states that the core layer is not foamed. See, e.g. Baert III, par. [0005, 0016] and disclosure as a whole. Accordingly, Applicant asserts one of ordinary skill in the art would not be motivated to substitute the high-density, non-foamed core taught in Baert III for the lightweight, flexible and foamed core taught by Baert I, when considers both references as a whole, see W.L. Gore & Assoc., Inc. v Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 1550 (Fed. Cir. 1983)(one must consider the references in their entireties), as it would defeat and render Baert I unsatisfactory for its specific intended purpose” (Remarks, Pgs. 11 – 12).
EXAMINER’S RESPONSE: Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. First, Baert I (Baert ‘912) teach a preferred embodiment of the central (core) layer is a thermoplastic foam material (paragraph [0017]), but does not require the core layer to be formed of foam (paragraphs [0009] – [0016]). Baert ‘912 does teach any particular density for the central layer.
The term “lightweight” is a relative term with no quantitative definition. The weight of a material is dependent on numerous factors, not density alone. Baert ‘912 teach the central layer is composed of a thermoplastic material, which is a large genus that constitutes a wide variety of materials that would influence the weight of the central layer. Baert ‘912 also teaches the central layer comprises filler materials that may be used (paragraph [0032]), which would also influence the weight of the central layer, regardless of the density.
Second, contrary to Applicant’s assertion, the modification suggested in the rejection did not suggest substituting a non-foam layer taught by Baert III for a foam layer taught by Baert I. The rejection noted it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to form a central layer of similar density as the non-foam layer taught by Baert III because Baert III teaches a direct correlation between density and rigidity. It is within the skill of one of ordinary skill in the art to adjust the density of a material without substitution of a completely different material.
Applicant argues, “Likewise, Schwitte, Baert, Baert II, Desmet, and Kladovasilakis does not cure the defects Baert I and Baert II, as they are silent and do not suggest a floor panel having a core layer, a buffer layer, a top layer, with each of the recited densities and other structural characteristics, as recited in amended claim 1” (Remarks, Pg. 12).
EXAMINER’S RESPONSE: Applicant is directed to the discussion above.
Applicant argues, “Kladovasilakis is a general review of materials for additive manufacturing (3D printing) that does not address the specific mechanical challenges of floor covering panels, particularly the prevention of ‘bottoming-out’ or point-impact deformation, as described in the present application. The mere disclosure in Kladovasilakis that 2.5-demensional lattices influence relative density and are useful in general for energy absorption does not provide the necessary motivation to one of ordinary skill in the art to integrate such structure into the multi-layer floor panel construction of Baert I, which had an inventive purpose of achieving a waterproof, lightweight and rigid floor panel (see Baert I disclosure, as a whole. Despite identifying several commercial applications for architected materials, Kladovasilakis fails to suggest or teach the use of architected materials for floor panels, which require a specific area-elastic deformation profiles (and wide dispersion of energy characteristics over a large surface), anywhere in its disclosure. Thus, the Examiner’s reasoning relies on impermissible hindsight reconstruction, as there is no suggestion in the prior art to combine a semi-rigid top layer having a high modulus of elasticity, with a high-density core layer, and a 2.5-dimensional continuous lattice buffer layer to achieve the claimed multi-layer density profile and area-elastic deformation profile of the inventive floor panel. Thus, the substitution proposed by the Office would require a complete redesign of the Baert I panel based on properties found in disparate technical field and without a reasonable expectation of success in preserving the Baert I flooring panel’s inventive characteristics and purpose” (Remarks, Pgs. 12 – 13).
EXAMINER’S RESPONSE: Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. First, in response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
Second, Baert I teach the buffer layer imparts shock absorbing qualities to the panel in case of a heavy impact on the of surface of the panel (paragraph [0034]). As Applicant pointed out, Kladovasilakis teach structures for energy absorption (i.e., sock absorption). Therefore, contrary to Applicant’s assertion, the teachings of Kladovasilakis are pertinent to the intended purpose of the buffer layer taught by Baert I, and as such, one of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success when incorporating the energy absorbing structural feature taught by Kladovasilakis into the buffer layer taught by Baert I.
Applicant argues, “Applicant submits that a dependent claim that depends on and further limits an allowable claim cannot be rejected for obvious under § 103” (Remarks, Pgs. 14 – 15).
EXAMINER’S RESPONSE: Applicant is directed to the discussion above.
Applicant argues, “With respect to new claim 22, Applicant points out that this new claim contains all of the limitations of amended claim 1, plus certain limitation (not all) of claim 2. Therefore, for the same reasons state above, Applicant submits claim 22 is allowable” (Remarks, Pg. 15).
EXAMINER’S RESPONSE: Applicant is directed to the discussion above.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 NICOLE T GUGLIOTTA whose telephone number is (571)270-1552. The examiner can normally be reached M - F (9 a.m. to 10 p.m.).
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, Frank Vineis can be reached at 571-270-1547. 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.
/NICOLE T GUGLIOTTA/Examiner, Art Unit 1781
/FRANK J VINEIS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1781
Prosecution Insights