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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-9 in the reply filed on 02/19/2026 is acknowledged.
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 3, 4, and 6-9 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.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the fiber sheet” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the fiber sheet” in line 1 from the bottom. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by JP 2008247973 to Furuta (hereinafter “Furuta”).
Furuta discloses a foamed molded article for a flooring material comprising a foam layer made from a thermoplastic resin, a wood filler, a foaming agent and a negative thermal expansion material (paragraph 13). The negative thermal expansion material is manganese nitride (paragraph 12). The thermoplastic resin is polyethylene resin (paragraph 20). The negative thermal expansion material is present in an amount of 1 to 20 wt% based on the total weight of the foamed molded article (paragraph 19).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Furuta as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 2013/0067842 to Meersseman et al. (hereinafter “Meersseman”).
Furuta does not explicitly disclose the foamed molded article where fiber sheets each composed of intersecting warp yarns and weft years are integrated with the foam layer at inner and outer faces.
Meersseman, however, discloses a flooring panel comprising a substrate 2, a top layer 3 provided on the substrate (abstract, figure 2). The substrate is a foamed PVC board (paragraph 75). The flooring panel further comprises glass fiber cloths 27 provided on both sides of the substrate (paragraph 17 and figure 2).
PNG
media_image1.png
196
494
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to motivated by the desire to include the glass fiber cloths disclosed in Meeersseman on both sides of the foam layer disclosed in Furuta, motivated by the desire to increase bending stiffness of the flooring material.
Claims 3 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Furuta as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 2019/0153734 to Van Vlassenrode et al. (hereinafter “Van Vlassenrode”).
Furuta does not explicitly disclose the foamed molded article where the foam layer and fiber sheets, each composed of intersecting warp yarns and weft yarns, are stacked to create a laminated structure, and are integrated with each other.
Van Vlassenrode, however, discloses a flooring panel comprising a carrier, and a top layer provided on the carrier (abstract). The carrier is a foam layer comprising polyvinylchloride, polyethylene, polypropylene or polyurethane (paragraphs 23 and 30). The flooring panel further comprises glass fiber cloth 12 as a reinforcement layer, situated at the center of the carrier (paragraph 38; and figure 2). The reinforcement layer is comprised of a plurality of glass fiber cloths (paragraph 44).
PNG
media_image2.png
275
509
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to motivated by the desire to include multiple glass fiber cloths disclosed in Van Vlassenrode at the center of the foam layer disclosed in Furuta, motivated by the desire to increase dimensional stability of the flooring material.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Furuta as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 2022/0315714 to Aratani (hereinafter “Aratani”).
Furuta does not explicitly disclose the foamed molded article comprising cellulose nanofibers.
Aratani, however, discloses a resin molded body having excellent mechanical strength and little warpage, comprising a thermoplastic resin matrix and cellulose nanofibers dispersed in the thermoplastic resin matrix (abstract). The resin molded body is obtained through foam injection molding of a resin composition (paragraph 145). The resin bolded body is thus a resin foam-molded body. The resin molded body is useful as a flooring material (paragraph 147). The cellulose nanofibers are present in an amount of 10-20 wt% based on the total weight of the resin molded body (tables 1 and 2).
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 cellulose nanofibers disclosed in Aratani in the foam layer disclosed in Furuta, motivated by the desire to provide excellent mechanical properties for the flooring material.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Furuta as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of and US 2018/0251376 to Fukazawa et al. (hereinafter “Fukasawa”), and Meersseman.
Furuta does not explicitly disclose the foamed molded article comprises (i) the negative thermal expansion material selected from zirconium tungsten phosphate, zirconium phosphate sulfate, oxide ceramic BiNi1-x-FexO3 having a perovskite structure composed of bismuth/nickel/iron, zirconium tungstate or silicon oxide; and (ii) a fiber sheet selected from glass fiber, carbon fiber or aramid fiber.
Fukazawa, however, discloses a negative thermal expansion material having excellent dispersibility and packing properties in a positive thermal expansion material wherein the negative thermal expansion material comprises manganese nitride, zirconium tungsten phosphate, bismuth-nickel-iron oxide, zirconium phosphate (paragraph 99). Fukazawa also teaches that that the negative thermal expansion material comprises spherical zirconium tungsten phosphate having a BET specific surface area of 2 m2/g or smaller (abstract).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute, or use zirconium tungsten phosphate disclosed in Fukawawa for, or in combination with manganese nitride disclosed in Furuta, motivated by the desire to provide excellent dispersibility and packing properties in the foam layer.
Meersseman, however, discloses a flooring panel comprising a substrate 2, and a top layer 3 provided on the substrate (abstract, figure 2). The substrate is a foamed PVC board (paragraph 75). The flooring panel further comprises glass fiber cloths 27 situated on both sides of the substrate (paragraph 17 and figure 2).
PNG
media_image1.png
196
494
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to motivated by the desire to include the glass fiber cloths disclosed in Meeersseman on both sides of the foam layer disclosed in Furuta/Fukazawa, motivated by the desire to increase bending stiffness of the flooring material.
Claims 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Furuta in view of Van Vlassenrode as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Fukazawa and Aratani.
Furuta discloses a foamed molded article for a flooring material comprising a foam layer made from a thermoplastic resin, a wood filler, a foaming agent and a negative thermal expansion material (paragraph 13). The negative thermal expansion material is manganese nitride (paragraph 12). The thermoplastic resin is polyethylene resin (paragraph 20). The negative thermal expansion material is present in an amount of 1 to 20 wt% based on the total weight of the foamed molded article (paragraph 19). The content of the negative thermal expansion material in volume% would overlap the claimed range.
Furuta does not explicitly disclose the foamed molded article wherein:
(i) the negative thermal expansion material is zirconium tungsten phosphate;
(ii) cellulose nanofiber powder is mixed in and integrated with the foam layer by 1 wt% or more;
(iii) a plurality of fiber sheets, each composed of intersecting warp yarns and weft yanrs, are integrated with the foam layer wherein the fiber sheet is a glass fiber cloth; and
(iv) the thermoplastic resin is polyurethane resin;
Van Vlassenrode, however, discloses a flooring panel comprising a carrier, and a top layer provided on the carrier (abstract). The carrier is a foam layer comprising polyvinylchloride, polyethylene, polypropylene or polyurethane (paragraphs 23 and 30). The flooring panel further comprises glass fiber cloth 12 as a reinforcement layer situated at the center of the carrier (paragraph 38; and figure 2). The reinforcement layer comprises a plurality of glass fiber cloths (paragraph 44).
PNG
media_image2.png
275
509
media_image2.png
Greyscale
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 multiple glass fiber cloths disclosed in Van Vlassenrode at the center of the foam layer disclosed in Furuta, motivated by the desire to increase dimensional stability of the flooring material. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the polyurethane resin disclosed in Van Vlassenrode for the polyethylene resin disclosed in Furuta as thermoplastic resin of the foam layer because polyurethane and polyethylene have been shown in the art to be recognized equivalent thermoplastic resins constituting the foam layers and the selection of these known equivalents to be used as thermoplastic resins for the foam layers will be within the level of the ordinary skill in the art.
Fukazawa, however, discloses a negative thermal expansion material having excellent dispersibility and packing properties in a positive thermal expansion material wherein the negative thermal expansion material comprises manganese nitride, zirconium tungsten phosphate, bismuth-nickel-iron oxide, zirconium phosphate (paragraph 99). Fukazawa also teaches that that the negative thermal expansion material comprises spherical zirconium tungsten phosphate having a BET specific surface area of 2 m2/g or smaller (abstract).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute, or use zirconium tungsten phosphate disclosed in Fukawawa for, or in combination with manganese nitride disclosed in Furuta, motivated by the desire to provide excellent dispersibility and packing properties in the foam layer.
Aratani, however, discloses a resin molded body having excellent mechanical strength and little warpage, comprising a thermoplastic resin and cellulose nanofibers dispersed in the thermoplastic resin (abstract). The resin molded body is obtained through foam injection molding of a resin composition (paragraph 145). The resin bolded body is thus a resin foam-molded body. The resin molded body is useful as a flooring material (paragraph 147). The cellulose nanofibers are present in an amount of 10-20 wt% based on the total weight of the resin molded body (tables 1 and 2).
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 cellulose nanofibers disclosed in Aratani in the foam layer disclosed in Furuta, motivated by the desire to provide excellent mechanical properties for the flooring material.
Conclusion
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