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 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.
Claim 6 is 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.
Claim 6 recites the indefinite phrase “the printed image does not comprise a film”. The phrase is considered to render the claim indefinite, as paragraph [0039] of the present specification lists examples of printed images not comprising films as, for example, materials comprising water-based ink or adhesives, such as a layer of adhesive (i.e., as best understood, films). Therefore, the intended scope of the phrase “the printed image does not comprise a film” (i.e., Applicant’s definition of a film is unclear, and therefore, it is unclear what structural features, specifically, are intended to be invoked by the present language). Applicant is essentially defining an image not comprising a film as including a film (i.e., such as an adhesive layer, as an adhesive layer is a specie of film). In the interest of compact prosecution, the claim will be interpreted as specifying a material comprising a water-based ink or adhesive.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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, 6, 12, 16-17, 37-39, and 48-49 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Brankov (WO2021/116026A1).
With regards to claim 1, Brankov discloses a decorative floor covering (i.e., an article having a longitudinal axis and a transverse axis that is perpendicular to the longitudinal axis) comprising a multilayer printing substrate (i.e., substrate) having a first side, a digitally-printed section located on an adhesive layer (i.e., a printed image) positioned on the first side of the substrate, wherein the digitally-printed adhesive layer comprises registration marks (i.e., at least one identifier), and an embossed in register (EIR) layer wherein the digitally-printed adhesive layer is positioned between the EIR layer and the substrate, wherein the digitally-printed adhesive layer is depicted as a pattern and the EIR layer is depicted as having a corresponding pattern that is aligned with the pattern of the formed image along the longitudinal axis and the transverse axis (Brankov: Figs. 1-6; para. [0020], [0025]-[0028], and [0038]). It is noted that the phrase “corresponding pattern that is aligned with the pattern of the printed image along the longitudinal axis and the transverse axis” is rather broad, given that the claim does not specify how the patterns “correspond” (i.e., as best understood, the claim is met, since the patterns of the printed image and EIR layer are both located as a part of a same article, the patterns having a longitudinal axis and a transverse axis).
With regards to claim 6, the printed image of Brankov is comprises an adhesive (i.e., does not comprise a film as best understood from the present specification) (see above discussion).
With regards to claim 12, the at least one identifier is formed as an embossment (i.e., as best understood from the present specification, embossments are optically capturable to permit alignment of the pattern of the printed image with the corresponding pattern of the EIR layer) (see above discussion).
With regards to claim 16, the pattern of the printed image comprises a geometric pattern (i.e., as technically, any pattern is a geometric pattern, as any pattern has a geometry) (see above discussion)
With regards to claim 17, the at least one identifier comprises a plurality of identifiers spaced two-dimensionally (i.e., implies spacing which is conducted at least along a longitudinal axis, or in other words, in a direction having a component extending along the longitudinal axis) (see above discussion).
With regards to claim 37, Brankov discloses a decorative floor covering (i.e., an article having a longitudinal axis and a transverse axis that is perpendicular to the longitudinal axis) comprising a multilayer printing substrate (i.e., substrate) having a first side, a digitally-printed section located on an adhesive layer (i.e., a printed image) positioned on the first side of the substrate, wherein the digitally-printed adhesive layer comprises registration marks (i.e., an identifier), and an embossed in register (EIR) layer wherein the digitally-printed adhesive layer is positioned between the EIR layer and the substrate, wherein the digitally-printed adhesive layer is depicted as a pattern and the EIR layer is depicted as having a corresponding pattern that is aligned with the pattern of the formed image along the longitudinal axis and the transverse axis (Brankov: Figs. 1-6; para. [0020], [0025]-[0028], and [0038]). It is noted that the phrase “corresponding pattern that is aligned with the pattern of the printed image along the longitudinal axis and the transverse axis, wherein the identifier identifies the corresponding pattern of the EIR layer and a location of the corresponding pattern of the EIR layer relative to the identifier” is rather broad, given that the claim does not specify how the patterns “correspond” (i.e., as best understood, the claim is met, since the patterns of the printed image and EIR layer are both located as a part of a same article, the patterns having a longitudinal axis and a transverse axis) or how the identifier “identifies” the corresponding pattern of the EIR layer (i.e., as best understood, the claim is met, since the identifier is located on the article, and therefore, it may be used to identify the article, which contains the corresponding pattern of the EIR layer relative to the identifier).
With regards to claim 38, the identifier is formed as an embossment (i.e., as best understood from the present specification, embossments may be captured non-optically) (see above discussion).
With regards to claim 39, the identifier is formed as an embossment (i.e., as best understood from the present specification, embossments are optically capturable) (see above discussion).
With regards to claim 48, Brankov discloses a decorative floor covering (i.e., an article having a longitudinal axis and a transverse axis that is perpendicular to the longitudinal axis) comprising a multilayer printing substrate (i.e., film) having a first side, a digitally-printed section located on an adhesive layer (i.e., a printed image) positioned on the first side of the film, wherein the digitally-printed adhesive layer comprises registration marks (i.e., at least one identifier), and an embossed in register (EIR) layer wherein the digitally-printed adhesive layer is positioned between the EIR layer and the film, wherein the digitally-printed adhesive layer is depicted as a pattern and the EIR layer is depicted as having a corresponding pattern that is aligned with the pattern of the formed image along the longitudinal axis and the transverse axis (Brankov: Figs. 1-6; para. [0020], [0025]-[0028], and [0038]). It is noted that the phrase “corresponding pattern that is aligned with the pattern of the printed image along the longitudinal axis and the transverse axis” is rather broad, given that the claim does not specify how the patterns “correspond” (i.e., as best understood, the claim is met, since the patterns of the printed image and EIR layer are both located as a part of a same article, the patterns having a longitudinal axis and a transverse axis).
With regards to claim 49, Brankov depicts its article rolled on a rolling apparatus (i.e., formed into a roll) (see above discussion).
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 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brankov as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Pervan (US2010/0092731A1).
With regards to claim 2, Brankov an article according to claim 1, the article further comprising a layer of adhesive disposed between the substrate and the printed image (i.e., the image itself is printed on the adhesive layer) (see above discussion). Brankov does not appear to disclose its substrate as comprising a fiber core.
Pervan discloses a wood fibre-based building panel and including a substrate comprising a fiber core, wherein the panel further comprises a layer of adhesive disposed between the substrate and an upper layer. Pervan further notes that, in the field of decorative materials, fibreboard is the most common known core material (Pervan: para. [0007]-[0009]). Pervan teaches that such fibrous materials are easy to form and compress, recyclable, and are easily mixed with wear resistant particles (i.e., wood fiber cores, as best understood, have improved wear resistance) (Pervan: para. [0047] and [0052]-[0055]). Brankov and Pervan are analogous art in that they are related to the same field of endeavor of decorative building materials. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have selected a wood fiber core material for the substrate of Brankov, as such materials are among the “most common” in the field, and further, a person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to make such a selection in order to provide easier processing, recyclability, and improved wear resistance (see above discussion).
With regards to claim 3, Brankov discloses its adhesive as comprising a radiation-curable polyurethane adhesive (i.e., a polyurethane reactive adhesive) (Brankov: para. [0017]).
Claims 4-5, 7-9, and 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brankov as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Klackmann-Schneider et al (US2017/0144427A1).
With regards to claim 4, Brankov discloses an article as applied to claim 1 above (see above discussion). However, Brankov does not appear to disclose its printed image as comprising a film and an ink printed thereon.
Klackmann-Schneider is directed to a printed resilient floor covering comprising a printed UV curable ink layer relocated on a support film (i.e., a film and an ink printed thereon) (Klackmann-Schneider: abstract; para. [0002]; claim 1). The UV curable ink taught by Klackmann-Schneider is capable of controlled curing, which enables the achievement of a degree of crosslinking which has improved durability and scratch resistance (Klackmann-Schneider: para. [0011]). Brankov and Klackmann-Schneider are analogous art in that they are related to the same field of endeavor of decorative articles. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have formed the printed image of Brankov from a combination of a film and a UV curable ink as taught by Klackmann-Schneider, in order to improve the durability and scratch resistance of the article of Brankov (see above discussion).
With regards to claim 5, the ink taught by Klackmann-Schneider is UV curable (see above discussion).
With regards to claim 7, the ink may include a water-based acrylate (i.e., water) (Klackmann-Schneider: para. [0034]).
With regards to claim 8, the printed image includes adhesive (see above discussion).
With regards to claim 9, the printed image has a first side facing the substrate and an opposite second side, wherein the article does not comprise a layer of adhesive on the second side of the printed image (i.e., as the adhesive is, instead, on the first side) (see above discussion).
With regards to claim 10, a person of ordinary skill would have found it obvious to have applied a UV curable layer (i.e., scratch coat) on a side of the EIR layer opposite the substrate, in order to improve the durability of the formed article (see above discussion).
With regards to claim 11, a person of ordinary skill would have found it obvious to have applied a UV curable layer (i.e., wear layer) on a side of the EIR layer opposite the substrate, in order to improve the durability of the formed article (see above discussion).
Claims 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brankov as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Küffner et al (US2017/0361952A1).
With regards to claim 13, Brankov discloses an article as applied to claim 12 above, the article comprising at least one identifier (see above discussion). However, Brankov does not disclose its identifier as comprising a barcode.
Küffner is directed to a partially embossed blank comprising a printed bar code (Küffner: abstract; para. [0023]). The bar code of Küffner can be read by a first sensor to produce a signal which is sent to a computer, enabling control and adjustment of the feed distance of the blank during processing (Küffner: para. [0024]-[0027]). Brankov and Küffner are analogous art in that they are related to the same field of endeavor of printed articles. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have formed the identifier of Brankov as a bar code, in order to enabling control and adjustment of the article of Brankov during processing (i.e., the bar code facilitates readability of the identifier) (see above discussion).
With regards to claim 14, the bar code may have, for example, a rectangular form (i.e., a 2D barcode) (see above discussion).
With regards to claim 15, the 2D barcode may be a data matrix or QR code (see above discussion).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ETHAN WEYDEMEYER whose telephone number is (571)270-1907. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 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, Maria V. Ewald can be reached at (571) 272-8519. 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.
/E.W./
Examiner, Art Unit 1783
/MARIA V EWALD/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1783