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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 1-14 objected to because of the following informalities:
Examiner notes the terms “multi-layer” and “multilayer” are recited interchangeably. Consistent formatting is requested.
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 1-14 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 and its structural language, it is unclear where the preamble of the claim ends and the body of the claim starts. The transitional language between the preamble and the body of the claim could not be ascertained. As such, this claim is unclear and indefinite.
Claim 1, Lines 19-20 recites the limitation “the required resilience and strength”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim as “a required resilience and strength” was not previously established. For examination purposes, the claim will be interpreted as if antecedent basis was properly established.
Claim 1 recites “the multi-layer floor panel” (singular) in Lines 10-11 and “the single multi-layer floor panel” in Lines 12-13. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim as “multi-layer floor panels” (plural) is recited in the preamble. For examination purposes, the claim will be interpreted as if antecedent basis was consistent throughout the claims.
Claim 4 recites “the polymer” (singular). There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim as “polymers” (plural) was previously recited. For examination purposes, the claim will be interpreted as if antecedent basis was consistent throughout the claims.
Claim 5 recites “the raw material” (singular). There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim as “raw material” (plural) was previously recited. For examination purposes, the claim will be interpreted as if antecedent basis was consistent throughout the claims.
The rest of the claims are rejected by virtue of their dependency on Claim 1.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-7, 10-11, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhou et al (CN206636117 with references to the machine English translation provided herewith) in view of Shiau (TW572825B with references to the machine English translation provided herewith).
Regarding Claim 1, Zhou teaches a method of producing multi-layer floor panels, in which a core composite layer with a thickness of 4 to 7 mm [0008]- substrate layer is 2-20mm larger than 0.3-8mm elastic buffer layer, made of mineral raw materials in an amount of at least 60% by weight and polymers in an amount of no more than 30% by weight, as well as other auxiliary substances ([0023]- discussing the composition of the substrate layer), is glued ([0028]- veneer is glued to the substrate layer) with a top layer made of solid wood sheets with a thickness ranging from 0.5 to 2.5 mm ([0008]- solid wood veneer layer has a thickness of 0.3-5mm),
wherein the core composite layer is provided [0027]-[0028], the core composite layer is activated ([0028]- substrate blank is sanded), a layer of adhesive is applied to the core composite layer ([0028]- discussing the application of glue), a composition of sheets of solid wood is provided, intended for the top layer, in which each of the sheets is obtained using chipless machining and drying ([0008]- discussing solid wood veneer thus is chipless), thereafter, onto the applied layer of adhesive, during an open time shorter than 40 s ([0028]- veneer applied immediately after glue is applied), the composition of sheets of solid wood prepared earlier is placed, constituting the top layer ([0028]- veneer applied immediately after glue is applied), and
wherein as the adhesive applied to the core composite layer a reactive hot-melt polyurethane adhesive is used ([0028]- discussing irreversible PUR adhesive).
Zhou does not specify the multi-layer floor panel prepared in such a manner is subjected to two-stage pressing, characterised in that in the first pressing stage, constituting preliminary pressing, glued layers forming the single multi-layer floor panel are pressed for a time between 5 and 50 seconds, until a physical, local joining of the layers is obtained, with localised delamination, allowing determination of the position of the sheets of solid wood constituting the top layer being placed on the core composite layer, and then numerous floor panels such pressed are stacked, after which the second stage of pressing of the said stack of preliminarily pressed floor panels is conducted, constituting main pressing, for a period no longer than 300 seconds, until an adhesive bond of the required resilience and strength is obtained.
Shiau teaches an alternative method of preparing a multilayer composite (Abstract) wherein the multi-layer panel prepared in such a manner is subjected to two-stage pressing (Abstract- hot press followed by cold press), characterised in that
in the first pressing stage, constituting preliminary pressing, glued layers forming the single multi-layer floor panel are pressed for a time between 60 and 250 seconds, until a physical, local joining of the layers is obtained, with localised delamination, allowing determination of the position of the sheets of solid wood constituting the top layer being placed on the core composite layer (Page 2, Lines 10-11; Abstract), and
then numerous panels such pressed are stacked, after which the second stage of pressing of the said stack of preliminarily pressed floor panels is conducted, constituting main pressing, for a period no longer than 300 seconds, until an adhesive bond of the required resilience and strength is obtained (Abstract- cold press for 60-80 second; Page 2, Lines 45-16- cold press for 60-180 seconds) in order to form a composite with a smooth face and superior bond strength (Abstract).
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 method of Zhou to include a two-stage pressing as taught by Shiau with reasonable expectation of success to form a composite with a smooth face and superior bond strength (Abstract).
Shiau does not specify the exact time of preliminary pressing is 5-50 seconds but teaches a bonding time of 60-250 seconds firmly binds the hot-pressed substrates (Page 2, Lines 10-11), thus, this is a result-effective variable modifying the degree of binding between substrates. Since applicants did not provide any criticality regarding the recited parameter, one skilled in the art would have found obvious to optimize pressing through routine experimentation in order to perfect the result-effective variable of the degree of binding between substrates, consult MPEP 2144.05 II.
Regarding Claims 2 and 3, Shiau does not specify the exact time of preliminary pressing is 5-20 or 8 seconds but teaches a bonding time of 60-250 seconds firmly binds the hot-pressed substrates (Page 2, Lines 10-11), thus, this is a result-effective variable modifying the degree of binding between substrates. Since applicants did not provide any criticality regarding the recited parameter, one skilled in the art would have found obvious to optimize pressing through routine experimentation in order to perfect the result-effective variable of the degree of binding between substrates, consult MPEP 2144.05 II.
Regarding Claim 4, Zhou further teaches PVC is used as the polymer in the core composite layer [0009]; [0023]-[0024].
Regarding Claim 5, Zhou further teaches chalk is used as the raw material in the core composite layer ([0009]-[0010]; [0023]-[0024]- calcium carbonate is chalk).
Regarding Claim 6, Zhou further teaches the absolute humidity of solid wood sheets glued to the core composite layer is in the range of 4 to 12% ([0008]- discussing wood or cork veneer; Examiner notes high quality wood veneers typically have a moisture content of 6-8% and cork veneers typically have a moisture content of 10-15%).
Regarding Claim 7, Zhou further teaches the activation of the core composite layer is conducted by way of grinding ([0028]- substrate blank is sanded).
Regarding Claim 10, Zhou does not specify the amount of polyurethane adhesive applied to the core composite layer is between 35 and 200 g/m2 but this is a result-effective variable modifying bond strength between components [0028]. Since applicants did not provide any criticality regarding the recited parameter, one skilled in the art would have found obvious to optimize the amount of adhesive through routine experimentation in order to perfect the result-effective variable of bond strength between components, consult MPEP 2144.05 II.
Regarding Claim 11, Zhou further teaches the solid wood sheets provided forming the top layer have a thickness ranging from 0.9 to 1.2 mm ([0008]- solid wood veneer layer has a thickness of 0.3-5mm).
Regarding Claim 14, Shiau further teaches the second pressing stage is conducted cold (Abstract- cold press for 60-80 second; Page 2, Lines 45-16- cold press for 60-180 seconds).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhou et al (CN206636117 cited in IDS with references to the machine English translation provided herewith) in view of Shiau (TW572825B with references to the machine English translation provided herewith) and Fay et al (PGPub 2016/0236455).
Regarding Claim 8, Zhou and Shiau do not specify the activation of the core composite layer is conducted by way of corona treatment.
Fay teaches an alternative method of manufacturing a composite (Abstract) wherein a corona treatment is applied to a substrate [0026] in order to increase adherence between layers [0026].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the combination of Zhou and Shiau to include a corona treatment application as taught by Fay with reasonable expectation of success to increase adherence between layers [0026].
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhou et al (CN206636117 cited in IDS with references to the machine English translation provided herewith) in view of Shiau (TW572825B with references to the machine English translation provided herewith) and Vermeulen (PGPub 2014/0147641).
Regarding Claim 9, Zhou and Shiau do not specify prior to the application of the layer of adhesive, the core composite layer is exposed to infrared radiation.
Vermeulen teaches an alternative method of making a flooring composite (Abstract) wherein the core may be heated with infrared radiation [0019] in order to heat the core to prepare it for receiving polymeric film (glue) [0019].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the combination of Zhou and Shiau to include preheating the core with infrared radiation as taught by Vermeulen with reasonable expectation of success to heat the core to prepare it for receiving polymeric film (glue) [0019].
Claims 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhou et al (CN206636117 cited in IDS with references to the machine English translation provided herewith) in view of Shiau (TW572825B with references to the machine English translation provided herewith) and Santarossa (WO2012140682 cited in IDS).
Regarding Claims 12 and 13, Zhou and Shiau do not specify a stress-relief layer (specifically varnish) is applied to the lower part of the core composite layer.
Santarossa teaches an alternative method of preparing a multi-layer flooring composite (Abstract) wherein varnish is applied over the exposed edges of the composite [0054] to prevent penetration of humidity into the composite [0054].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the combination of Zhou and Shiau to include applying varnish to the composite as taught by Santarossa with reasonable expectation of success to prevent penetration of humidity into the composite [0054].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Adrianna Konves whose telephone number is (571)272-3958. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00-4:00 MST (Arizona).
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, Abbas Rashid can be reached at (571) 270-7457. 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.
/A.K./Examiner, Art Unit 1748 8/12/26
/Abbas Rashid/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1748
Prosecution Insights