DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1-15 in the reply filed on 6-24-2026 is acknowledged.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1 and 3-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meersseman et al., US 2013/0104485 A1, in view of Stone et al., US Patent no. 7155871 B1.
Regarding claims 1, 6-7, and 12, Meersseman teaches a floor or wall panel (Abstract, [0130]) comprising a substrate (6 of Fig.3- 4, corresponding to the claimed “first layer”) that comprises at least 50% of the thickness of the panel ([0026]) and is made from a thermoplastic material such as polyethylene or polypropylene ([0058]). Meersseman teaches an underlayer (12 of Fig. 3-4, correspond to the claimed “counter layer”) connected to the bottom surface of the substrate layer and teaches a top layer (7 of Fig. 3-4) provided on the top surface of the substrate, the top layer including a print layer (9 of Fig. 3-4) applied to a film of synthetic material (11 of Fig. 3-4) that that is bonded to the top of the substrate via an adhesive ([0024], [0108]), and further teaches a wear layer (10 of Fig. 3-4) on the outermost surface of the panel. Note that the substrate layer and underlayer of Meerssenan are being construed as corresponding to the claimed “carrier.” Meersseman teaches that the panel may be provided with coupling means on two opposite edges to allow two panels to be coupled in a manner such that a locking is obtained in a vertical direction perpendicular to a plane of the panels and also in a horizontal direction perpendicular to the coupled edges, the coupling means provided substantially in the substrate layer ([0029]-[0035], Fig. 4 and 17-20).
Regarding claim 12 specifically, Meersseman teaches the use of digital printing to apply the print layer ([0017]) and teaches that the lacquer layer may be cured via UV exposure ([0110]). Note that although Meersseman teaches the claimed limitations, the limitations related to how the printing layer is applied or how the lacquer layer is cured are product-by-process limitations, and it is unclear how the claimed method steps would result in a product that materially differed from an otherwise-identical product that was manufactured using a different method (see MPEP 2113 I).
The teachings of Meersseman differ from the present invention in that Meerseman does not teach that the underlayer (corresponding to the claimed “counter later” is softer than the substrate (corresponding to the claimed “first layer”). Stone, however, teaches that it is advantageous to make the lowest layer of such artificial floor planks from soft materials such as flexible thermoplastic polyurethane foams, because doing do allows them to conform to irregularities in the underlying floor surface (Abstract, col. 2 ln. 17-18, col. 3 ln. 11-16). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to make the underlayer of the product of Meersseman from a soft material such as a thermoplastic polyurethane foam, in accordance with the teachings of Stone, because doing so would allow the lower surface of the plank to conform to irregularities in the underlying floor substrate. As the substrate of Meersseman is not made from a soft material, one of ordinary skill in the art would expect this to result in the underlayer being softer than the substrate layer.
Regarding claims 3-5 and 13, Meersseman teaches that the substrate layer may comprise fillers, including inorganic fillers such as glass fibers ([0123]).
Regarding claim 8, Meersseman teaches that the underlying layer 12 may be applies via a glue ([0085]).
Regarding claim 9-10 and 14, Meersseman teaches that the printed pattern may represent wood ([0122]) and teaches that the top layer may be embossed in a manner corresponding to the print layer ([0056]).
Regarding claims 11 and 15, Meersseman does not teach the presence of a “layer-like reinforcement”.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meersseman et al., US 2013/0104485 A1, in view of Stone et al., US Patent no. 7155871 B1, as applied above, and further in view of Hannig, 2016/0136913 A1.
Regarding claim 2, Meersseman teaches the floor panel as discussed above. The teachings of Meersseman differ from the present invention in that although Meersseamn teaches that the substrate layer should be made from a thermoplastic polymer, Meersseman does not explicitly teach polyethylene terephthalate. Hannig, however, teaches a similar floor panel (Abstract) and teaches polyethylene terephthalate to be an appropriate thermoplastic material for making core layers in such panels ([0075]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use polyethylene terephthalate as the thermoplastic material in the core layer of Meersseman because Hannig explicitly teaches polyethylene terephthalate to be an appropriate thermoplastic material for making the core later of such floor panels.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Ian A Rummel whose telephone number is (571)270-5692. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday and alternating Fridays, 8:30-5:00.
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.
/IAN A RUMMEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1785
Prosecution Insights