Claims 21-36, and 41-44 are pending in the application. Claims 1-20, and 37-40 have been cancelled. Claims 21-36, and 41-44 are rejected.
The 112 rejection has been maintained.
The rejections based on Wonisch have been withdrawn in view of the present amendment and response. Wonisch fails to teach the plurality of foam particles comprising a first portion of foam particles shaped as irregular spheroids and a second portion of foam particles shaped as cubes or cuboids.
New ground of rejection is made in view of new combination of Higgins I and Higgins II.
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 42 and 44 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.
It is not clear whether a first part of the plurality of foam particles is the same or different than a first group of the plurality of foam particles. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
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 21-36, and 41-44 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by US 2004/0022991 to Higgins et al. (hereinafter “Higgins I”) in view of US 2007/0275207 to Higgins et al. (hereinafter “Higgins II”).
Higgins I discloses a flooring material 110D comprising a cushioning material and a pile fabric face 112 provided on the cushioning material (abstract; and figure 13D). The cushioning material comprises a foam layer 178 made of virgin foam chips and recycled foam chips; and a binder binding the foam chips together under compression (paragraphs 65-67; and table 1). The foam chips have a particle size of 2 to 20 mm (table 1). The foam layer has a density of 4 to 16 pcf or 64 to 256 kg/m3 (table 1). The recycled foam chips are rebonded chips obtained from post-industrial reclaimed foam or cushion element (paragraph 66).
PNG
media_image1.png
336
524
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Higgins I does not explicitly disclose the recycled foam chips comprising a first portion of foam chips shaped as irregular spheroids and a second portion of foam chips shaped as cubes or cuboids.
Higgins II, however, discloses a carpet tile comprising a carpet face and a resilient backing layer underneath the carpet face (abstract; and figure 1). The backing layer is comprised of foam particles being bonded together by a binder (abstract). The foam particles are characterized by substantially fractal irregular surface configuration, but may also be spherical, rectangular, and polygonal (paragraph 11). The foam particles include a first portion of foam particles shaped as irregular spheroids and a second portion of foam particles shaped as cuboids. The binder includes ethylene vinyl acetate (EVA) (paragraph 75).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the foam chips disclosed in Higgins I having the shape of irregular spheroids and cuboids as disclosed in Higgins II, motivated by the desire to enhance the bonding between foamed chips while providing a lightweight molded article.
As to claim 22, Higgins I discloses that the flooring material includes a friction enhancing coating 180 in contact with the ground. The friction enhancing coating corresponds to the claimed anti-skid layer.
As to claims 23 and 24, Higgins I discloses that the foam layer 178 is made of recycled foam chips and a binder binding the foam chips together under compression (paragraphs 65-67; and table 1). The recycled foam chips are rebonded chips obtained from post-industrial reclaimed foam or cushion element (paragraph 66).
As to claim 25, Higgins I discloses that the foam layer has a density of 6 pcf or 96 kg/m3 (table 3).
As to claims 26-28, Higgins I discloses that a flooring material 110D comprises a cushioning material and a pile fabric face 112 provided on the cushioning material (abstract; and figure 13D). The cushioning material comprises a foam layer 178 made of recycled foam chips and a binder binding the foam chips together under compression (paragraphs 65-67; and table 1). The foam chips have a particle size of 2 to 20 mm (table 1). The compressed foam layer has a density of 4 to 16 pcf or 64 to 256 kg/m3 (table 1).
In the case, where the claimed ranges overlap or touch the range disclosed by the prior art a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257,191 USPQ90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990), In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
The claim is not rendered unobvious because discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. Difference in the foam layer density, and the particle size of the foam chips will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating that the foam layer density, and the particle size of the foam chips are critical or provide unexpected results.
Therefore, in the absence of unexpected results, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the foam layer having a density within the claimed range, motivated by the desire to provide a light weight flooring material. This is in line with In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 which holds discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art.
Therefore, in the absence of unexpected results, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the foam chips having a particle size in the range instantly claimed, motivated by the desire to enhance the bonding between foam chips. This is in line with In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 which holds discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art.
As to claims 29, 33 and 35, Higgins I discloses that a flooring material 110D comprises a cushioning material and a pile fabric face 112 provided on the cushioning material (abstract; and figure 13D). The cushioning material comprises a foam layer 178 made of recycled foam chips and a binder binding the foam chips together under compression (paragraphs 65-67; and table 1). The foam chips have a particle size of 2 to 20 mm (table 1). The compressed foam layer has a density of 100 kg/m3 or 48 kg/m3 (tables 4 and 5) while including a binder and compressed foam chips. Therefore, the foam chips themselves must have a density lower than 48 kg/m3 to support the overall density of the compressed foam layer at that value. This overlaps the claimed range.
In the case, where the claimed ranges overlap or touch the range disclosed by the prior art a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257,191 USPQ90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990), In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
The claim is not rendered unobvious because discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. Difference in the foam chip density will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating that the foam chip density is critical or provides unexpected results.
Therefore, in the absence of unexpected results, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the foam chips disclosed in Higgins I and II having a density in the range instantly claimed, motivated by the desire to enhance the bonding between foam chips while providing a lightweight flooring material.
As to claim 30, Higgins I discloses that a flooring material 110D comprises a cushioning material and a pile fabric face 112 provided on the cushioning material (abstract; and figure 13D). The cushioning material comprises a foam layer 178 made of virgin foam chips, recycled foam chips; and a binder binding the foam chips together under compression (paragraphs 65-67; and table 1). The foam chips have a particle size of 2 to 20 mm (table 1). The compressed foam layer has a density of 4 to 16 pcf or 64 to 256 kg/m3 (table 1). In particular, the compressed foam layer reaches a density of 96 kg/m3 while including a binder and compressed foam chips. Therefore, the foam chips themselves must have a density lower than 96 kg/m3 to support the overall density of the compressed foam layer at that value.
The recycled foam chips are rebonded chips obtained from post-industrial reclaimed foam or cushion element (paragraph 66).
PNG
media_image1.png
336
524
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Higgins I does not explicitly disclose the recycled foam chips comprising a first portion of foam chips shaped as irregular spheroids and a second portion of foam chips shaped as cubes or cuboids.
Higgins II, however, discloses a carpet tile comprising a carpet face and a resilient backing layer underneath the carpet face (abstract; and figure 1). The backing layer is comprised of foam particles being bonded together by a binder (abstract). The foam particles are characterized by substantially fractal irregular surface configuration, but may also be spherical, rectangular, and polygonal (paragraph 11). The foam particles include a first portion of foam particles shaped as irregular spheroids and a second portion of foam particles shaped as cuboids. The binder includes ethylene vinyl acetate (EVA) (paragraph 75).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the foam chips disclosed in Higgins I having the shape of irregular spheroids and cuboids as disclosed in Higgins II, motivated by the desire to enhance the bonding between foamed chips while providing a lightweight molded article.
As to claims 31 and 41, Higgins I discloses that the foam chips comprise open cell foam particles and closed cell foam particles (paragraph 80).
As to claim 32, Higgins I discloses that the foam layer has a density of 96 kg/m3 (table 3).
As to claim 34, Higgins I discloses that the foam chips have a particle size of 5 to 15 mm (table 2). The recycled foam chips are produced through mechanical shredding and/or grinding of the foam material.
As to claim 36, Higgins I does not explicitly disclose the binder comprising polyvinyl acetate.
Higgins II, however, discloses a carpet tile comprising a carpet face and a resilient backing layer underneath the carpet face (abstract; and figure 1). The backing layer is comprised of foam particles being bonded together by a binder (abstract). The binder includes ethylene vinyl acetate (EVA) (paragraph 75).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use EVA disclosed in Higgins II as the binder for bonding the recycled foam chips disclosed in Higgins I, motivated by the desire to enhance the bonding between foamed particles while providing a lightweight molded article.
As to claims 42 and 43, Higgins I discloses that the foam chips are rebonded foam (paragraphs 64 and 65).
As to claim 44, Higgins I does not explicitly disclose the foam chips comprising interstitial voids.
Higgins II, however, discloses that the backing layer comprises interstitial voids between foam chips to reduce mass, reduce cost, increase flexibility while enhancing later grip and reducing creep (paragraph 69).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the backing layer of Higgins I having interstitial voids as disclosed in Higgins II, motivated by the desire to reduce mass, reduce cost, increase flexibility while enhancing later grip and reducing creep.
Response to Arguments
Higgins I does not disclose the plurality of foam particles comprising a first portion of foam particles shaped as irregular spheroids, and a second portion of foam particles shaped as cubes or cuboids. However, the claim is rendered obvious in view of new combination of Higgins I and II.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Martin et al. (US 2022/0017718) discloses a polymer composite comprising tubular particles, at least one resin with fibers embedded therein.
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 Hai Vo whose telephone number is (571)272-1485. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:00 am - 6:00 pm with every other Friday off.
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, Alicia Chevalier can be reached at 571-272-1490. 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.
/Hai Vo/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1788
Prosecution Insights