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 .
The amendment of September 13, 2026 has been received and entered. With the entry of the amendment, claims 1-10 and new claim 11 are pending for examination.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Examiner notes that a copy of EP 0634516 (which was not considered in the IDS of April 25, 2026, as failing to provide a copy of actual cited foreign patent document) was filed September 13, 2026. No IDS was filed with this copy. Note that as discussed in MPEP 609.05(a) with regard to noncomplying Information Disclosure Statements, “Applicant may then file a new information disclosure statement or correct the deficiency in the previously filed IDS, but the date that the new IDS or correction is filed will be the date of the IDS for purposes of determining compliance with the requirements based on the time of filing of the IDS (37 CFR 1.97).” Here, as of the September 13, 2026 providing date of the EP copy, compliance is not provided with the requirements as to the time of filing, since either a 1.97(e) statement tor 1.17(p) fee needed, and neither is provided.
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 and 5 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, it was previously indicated as confusing if the first fluid adhesive material and the second fluid adhesive material supposed to each be part of the “fluid adhesive material” of claim 1, or not? For the purpose of examination, any option of this issue is understood to meet the claim requirements, but applicant should clarify what is intended, without adding new matter. This aspect of the rejection of claims 3 was not addressed in the amendment of September 13, 2026, and therefore remains.
Claim 5, as to “first type of said material particles” and “second type of said material particles”, it is confusing and indefinite as to what is meant by “type”. Is simply different particles referred to? It is particles with different features, such as different colors? Are they supposed to have different effects? For the purpose of examination, any option is understood to meet the claim requirements, but applicant should clarify what is intended, without adding new matter. In the September 13, 2026 amendment, it is argued that different or the same types of material particles can be used where different types can be features as in claim 11. The Examiner notes that in claim 11 this clarifies what is intended by types, but the broadness in claim 5 remains where it is unclear what is covered by “type”.
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 1-3, 6, 7, 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EP 2943348 (hereinafter '348) in view of Buck (US 2020/0215665).
Claim 1: ‘348 describes a process of manufacturing a floor covering having at least one base layer (panel 1 or surface 2) that has an upper face and a lower face (note 0001, 0119, 0123, figure 2d). The base layer can be made of polymer materials (note 0129, 0151, 0153, where surface 2 can be a plastic foil, for example). The upper face can be provided with a predefined relief pattern (note figure 2c, 2d, 0119-0120, 0178, print P shown in relief). The process includes a step (a) of advancing the base layer (note figure 2d showing movement as an arrow, and 0173). The process includes a step (b) of depositing a fluid adhesive material on the upper face of the base layer according to the predefined relief pattern (note figures 2a, 2d, 0119-0121, deposition of liquid binder/adhesive 11, described as blank ink, in predetermined pattern, 0133-0139, 0146). Numerical control deposition means (as understood under 35 USC 112(f), noting the means plus function language used) are controlled to provide the deposition (note figures 2d, 1e, 0119, 0037-0038, 0041, describing digital ink jet printers that can be used with digital control, and the present disclosure indicated the numerical control deposition means can be digital ink jet printing equipment). There is a further step (c) of depositing material particles (also called dry ink) on the fluid adhesive material (note figure 2d, 0119-0121). There is a further step (d) of curing the deposited fluid adhesive material which forms the desired relief pattern (note figure 2d, 0177-0178, note stabilization and heating with lamp 23, which can be considered a curing).
Furthermore, as to specifically crosslinking the deposited fluid adhesive material to bond the material particles to the base layer, in ‘348, the binder/blank ink acts to bond the particles/colourants and base layer (note 0135-0137). Furthermore, ‘348 teaches that the binder/blank ink can contain curable binders such as acrylic emulsions which will bond particles when water content evaporates (note 0146).
Buck describes how an acrylic emulsion can be used as a binder/adhesive in a coating process to bond material particles and a substrate surface together where there is curing and crosslinking of the acrylic emulsion (note 0089, 0043-0044, 0056, with a water based solution used note 0022).
Therefore, it further would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify ‘348 to specifically provide that the adhesive material contains an acrylic emulsion that would be cured and crosslinked after the particles applied to bond the material particles to the base layer to help adhere the particles as suggested by Buck, since ‘348 applies a binder/adhesive liquid that can contain a curable acrylic emulsion to help bond particles, and Buck specifically indicates that when a water based adhesive/binder solution used to adhere particles to a surface a curable and crosslinking acrylic emulsion can be used to act as the binder and bond together the particles and substrate material when cured and crosslinked.
Claim 2: As to the continuous manufacturing, where the base layer advances continuously, in ‘348 as indicted by figure 2d, the base layer is advanced during processing, and the conveyor 21 speed (which would move the base layer) can be controlled, note 0173, and therefore it would have been obvious to modify ‘348 in view of Buck to optimize the speed of the base layer during processing, which would give continuous advancing of the base layer and continuous manufacturing.
Claim 3: As to providing that step (b) has controlling numerical control deposition means to deposit a first fluid adhesive material on the upper face according to a first part of the predefined relief pattern, and controlling numerical control deposition means to deposit a second fluid adhesive material on the upper face according to a second part of the predefined relief pattern, this would be suggested by ‘348, which indicates providing binder/adhesive liquid applied in a predefined relief pattern using numerical control deposition means. Furthermore, ‘348 indicates that in figure 2d how there can be the binder/adhesive (blank ink) dropped from applicator 30’ followed by particles, etc. where several heads 30’ can be provided side by side to cover the width of the web, so first and second adhesive fluids can be dropped from the first and second applicators according to a total relief pattern with each providing a part of the pattern and the numerical control deposition means would be used for each (as part of the number control deposition means in claim 1) (note figure 2d, 0172, where the adhesive would be different as from different applicators), and as well Figure 11 a, shows how first and second binder/adhesive/blank liquid can be applied in sequence, so each provide part of a pattern (note figure 11a, 0234, where preferably the same ink composition can be used, but since preferable would also allow for different inks, and also note figure 5, 0199).
Claim 6: as to coating a protective layer on the particles so after steps c) or d) so that the material particles are partially embedded in the thickness of the protective layer, and crosslinking the protective layer, ‘348 indicates that after the particles (colourants) applied a UV curing transparent lacquer is applied and then cured, which would give a protective coating (note 0163). While the thickness is not specifically disclosed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the thickness so as to at least partially embed the particles and to further crosslink, since as discussed for claim 1, providing coating to contact the particles and crosslink helps adhesion to the particles and substrate, and by doing the same with the curable top coating would further help adhere the particles, and by partially embedding the particles applied are still clearly presented in the pattern for use.
Claim 7: As to printing a decorative pattern over the material particles using an inkjet printing process, ‘348 at figure 6A indicates that there can be conventional digital printing equipment and/or an inkjet printer that prints a desired color pattern after the application of the particles (note figure 6A, 0200, and 0040 notes that the digital printers can also be inkjet printers), and it would have been obvious to optimize the placement of the later inkjet printing to provide the desired specific pattern for use, giving the later inkjet printing over the previously applied material particles.
Claim 9: In ‘348 in view of Buck, where providing the crosslinking (which occurs after step c), it would further be understood that there would be a partial crosslinking occurring before the final full crosslinking reaches, since it is indicated in Buck that there is a curing process with the crosslinking occurring during this process (note 0089), so there would predictably and acceptably be a first step of initial partial crosslinking and a second step of continuing crosslinking until fully crosslinked.
Claim 10: since the process in claim 1 creates a floor covering with a base layer having a predetermined relief pattern, a floor covering product with the features of claim 10 would also be provided.
Claims 4-5 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ‘348 in view of Buck as applied to claims 1-3, 6, 7, 9 and 10 above, and further in view of CN 204172576 U (hereinafter ‘576).
Claims 4-5, 11: also to also providing a numerical control deposition means to provide for a controlled deposit of the material particles (as part of the number control deposition means in claim 1) (note claim 4), with for claim 5 providing two numerical control deposit means (as part of the number control deposition means in claim 1) to apply, respectively, a first type of the material particles to the adhesive of the first part of the pattern, and a second type of material particles to the adhesive of the second part of the pattern, where for claim 11, the first and second type of material particles are different in terms of features such as color, etc., ‘348 indicates that scattering equipment can be used to deposit the particles (note figure 2d, 0175, including first and second applicators for first and second particle types, note figure 11a , 0224, 234, with stations 40a, 40b, that can deposit a different color at each station, so a different type of particle in terms of color, note the particles with colorants 7, also note 0121) and also indicates that the particle applicators can be controlled so that the particles only impact the surface where desired, where the applicator has a hopper and distribution elements using additional air nozzles(note figure 13c, 0245, where the system for this can be controlled digitally). Also noted that ‘348 applies to treating both floor coverings/panels and wall coverings/panels (note 0001).
As to providing numerical control deposition means as claimed (noting the claims would be interpreted under 35 USC 112(f) as means plus function devices), ‘576 further describes a powder/particle sprinkler/applicator that can be for treating wallpaper (wall coverings) (note the abstract, pages1 1-2, translation). The applicator would include providing a powder box (hopper) holding the powder and connecting a discharge part to the box (note connecting portion 31), which would be an outlet, and with a sprinkling portion 32 and opening 33 from which powder exits, where the applicator also contains pushing block 21 and protrusions 24 (note figures 1-3 and pages 2-3, translation), where these various parts can be considered as facing the outlet of the hopper and inclined to a horizontal plane, where the particles slide to a descending edge (note 33) (figure 1) and can be capable of accumulating material without flowing (since vibration provided for the flowing, note page 3, translation). The applicator also has vibrating means associated with the distribution element to vibrate this element and spread the powder to be distributed evenly to the sprinkling port 33 (figure 1 and page 3, translation). It would be understood that with the spreading distribution and the plates 22, etc. contacting and affecting the spread would mean that some particles would predictably and acceptably also slide upwards as well as towards the outlet 33 during the vibration. Therefore, this device is understood to meet the description provided by applicant of a numerical control deposition means for application of particles under 35 USC 112(f) or be a substantial equivalent of such a device. The device provides for even spread of powder (note page 3, translation).
Therefore, it further would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify ‘348 in view of Buck to specifically use a powder/particle applicator as described by ‘576 as discussed above to provide for a desirable even spread of particles during application, since ‘348 describes using a particle spreader/sprinkler from a hopper that can be controlled digitally, and coating floor or wall coverings, and ‘576 teaches a desirable particle applicator that can be used for wall coverings (and from the similar use for floor coverings in ‘348 would also be understood to be usable for that purpose), where such a particle applicator can meet the requirements of a numerical control deposition means under 35 USC 112(f) considerations as discussed above, and provides a desirable even spread of powder, and be part of the number control deposition means in claim 1, which application would additionally be controlled by the air nozzles as in ‘348 to provide further control of where the particles impact giving a digitally controlled pattern application. Further as to providing first and second of the applicator means as noted above with the controlled application to deposit first type of material particles and second type of material particle, with different colors, for example, respectively (for claims 5 and 11), it would have been obvious to provide this, since ‘348 would note using first and second particles applicators for first and second, respectively, particles of relief pattern, where the particles can be different colors (note ‘348, figure 11a, 0234, for example).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ‘348 in view of Buck as applied to claims 1-3, 6, 7, 9 and 10 above, and further in view of Lussi et al (US 5260118).
Claim 8: as to providing the base layer with decorative layer having a predefined decorative pattern and depositing the fluid adhesive material according to the position of this pattern,
Lussi describes making a floor or wall covering product with application of adhesive and particles (note column 3, lines 45-65), where there is an optional printed layer overlying the substrate (note column 3, lines 50-55), where it is described that a print layer in predetermined pattern can be applied directly to the substrate (note column 8, line 65 to column 9, line 25). Furthermore, then an adhesive layer is selectively applied and particles applied over that (note column 9, lines 25-65, column 4, lines 15-25), and where the adhesive layer is applied in register with the pattern of the printed layer (note column 4, lines 15-25), which would give an effective appearance of the overall floor/wall covering (note column 4, lines 20-40).
Therefore, it further would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify ‘348 in view of Buck to initially provide a decorative pattern printed directly on the base layer/substrate and depositing the fluid adhesive material according to the position of the pattern as suggested by Lussi with an expectation of predictably acceptable results, because ‘348 is providing a floor covering with a decorative pattern with selective adhesive and particle application, and Lussi teaches that in a similar process it is also known to first apply a decorative pattern to the substrate/base layer and then apply the adhesive according to the position of the decorative pattern.
Claim 9 is alternatively rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ‘348 in view of Buck as applied to claims 1-3, 6-7 and 10 above, and further in view of Hansson et al (US 2003/0207083).
Claim 9: as to after step c) partially crosslinking the deposited fluid material (if understood to be not continued to be fully crosslinked before further treatment), ‘348 notes that there can be two step bonding for the application of the colourants/particles, with a first bonding sufficient to adhere the colourants/particles to the binder, and a second for permanent bonding, allowing repeated print cycles to build up before permanent bonding (note 0135-0138).
Hansson describes forming floor coverings (note 0006, 0035), where various layers can be applied including applying a base lacquer coating, then particles, then more lacquer, then partial curing, then a further layer of material, then further particles, then partial curing, and thereafter complete curing (note 0037, Process Scheme 1).
Therefore, it further would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify ‘348 in view of Buck to provide application of adhesive, then particles, then partial curing/crosslinking, then more adhesive, then particles, then partial curing/crosslinking and then final crosslinking as suggested by Hansson to provide desirably adhered material, since ‘348 indicates that there can be adhesive application, then particle application and then partial bonding, before more adhesive application, then particle application, and thereafter permanent boding, with from Buck there can be curing and crosslinking (at the same time, note 0089) for the bonding, and Hansson would indicate that in a similar process with coating, then particle application, there can be partial curing before further coating and particle application, then partial curing again, and thereafter complete curing, and given the use of curing and crosslinking in Buck, with partial curing there would also be acceptably partial crosslinking.
Lussi et al (US 5246765) also notes making floor coverings with application adhesive and application of particles (note column 3, lines 45-55, column 4, lines 5-25, column 10, lines 30-40).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed September 13, 2026 have been fully considered.
Note that the issues as to the remaining 35 USC 112 rejections have been addressed in the 35 USC 112 section above.
As to the 35 USC 103 rejections, it is argued that in ‘348 that blank ink (indicated by the Examiner as corresponding to a fluid adhesive material) is not crosslinked to form a relief, where the “blank ink” defines location at which dry colourant particles are retained. It is indicated that paragraph 0136 (apparently of ‘348) provides that “The colourants are preferably bonded to the surface in two steps. . .” and at 0138, the blank ink is described as water, where the blank ink is not cross linked or used to bond the particles as in claim 1. The Examiner notes that 0138 does not indicate the blank ink as water. 0139 does describe that the blank ink as a liquid substance that preferably mainly comprises water. Furthermore, while the blank ink can be a non-curable liquid (as in 0145), as noted by the Examiner in the rejection (and applicant in the response), it is also indicated at 0146 that the ink can specifically have the option of containing curable binders, including acrylic emulsion that will bond particles when water content evaporates and will create a strong bond under high heat and pressure. Thus, it is provided that a blank ink with a curable material can be used to bond the particles. Applicant further argues that use of this embodiment is not described as forming a crosslinking step to form a predefined relief pattern, where ‘348 does not describe a relief that is predetermined and formed by the material particles, where it only focuses on designs with additional pressed patterns using steel belts or embossed pattern or a matrix. The Examiner is of the position that as shown in figure 2d, after applying the blank ink (fluid material), then the particles (dry ink) (note 0172-0174), then there is heating and bonding and curing (note 0177-0178), and as shown in figure 2d, the remaining structure P is in relief to the surface. Even if the particles/pattern is later pressed, it is in relief at this point. Furthermore, there is no limitation as to how high the relief must be, so any extension above the surface can be considered in relief. As well, in ‘348, even after post treatment pressing, the pattern formed is shown in relief of the substrate (as in figures 11a, 12a). While figures 14, 15 of ‘348 show pressing into the substrate, this is not required (note 0264). The Examiner further used Buck as to the specific suggestion to crosslink the deposit fluid adhesive material/blank ink to bond the particles to the base layer as part of forming the relief pattern, ‘348 wants the blank ink to help bond the particles/colourants and the base layer (noting 0135-0137, at the least the particles bond to the ink and these bonded particles further bond to the substrate), and as noted the ink can contain curable binders such as acrylic emulsions that will bond particles when water content evaporates (note 0146), where Buck further describes how an acrylic emulsion can be used to bond material particles and a substrate together with curing and crosslinking the emulsion. Therefore, it would have been obvious to provide such crosslinking to help bind together the substrate material and particles. Even if Buck shows the particles mixed in with the coating solution before application, it still would be expected that the crosslinking suggested by Buck would help bind the particles and substrate, since (1) the coating material/blank ink/would be bonded to the substrate by crosslinking whether or not particles present, since that contains the curable material, and (2) as indicated by ‘348 the blank ink/liquid with the acrylic emulsion also acts to bond particles, and as well, when the particles applied to the blank ink as in ‘348 it contacts the blank ink which acts to bond particles, which would only occur with the ink present on the particles to bind to. As to Buck only impregnating cloth, it still shows binding to the surface to which the emulsion applied. ‘348’s surface can be a variety of materials including a paper layer, or a powder layer with polymer/resin (note 0122-0123, 0158), which can also allow some impregnation as well. As well, the same crosslinking process indicated as providing such bonding would be provided, even if initially for the purpose of bonding the particles. As to Buck not using the acrylic coating to form the relief pattern, etc., it still would have been obvious for one looking at ‘348 indicating that ink with curable binders, including acrylic emulsions, to bond the particles, to further be suggested to look to see how binder solutions with acrylic emulsions would be known to operate. Therefore, while Buck is not making flooring, it would have been pertinent to look to art such as Buck that indicates how the solutions can act with particles, including the effect of curing, since a specifically curable material is used. The processes would not be incompatible as to the understanding of how curing would affect results. Therefore, the rejections above are maintained.
Conclusion
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 KATHERINE A BAREFORD whose telephone number is (571)272-1413. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 6:00 am -3:30 pm, 2nd F 6:00 am -2:30 pm.
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, GORDON BALDWIN can be reached at 571-272-5166. 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.
/KATHERINE A BAREFORD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1718
