DETAILED ACTION
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55. However, no priority is given to this application as the specification is directed to PET while the priority document is directed to PETG.
Election/Restrictions
The restriction requirement has been withdrawn as the method claims have been cancelled. If claims not directed to the article are added in the future a new restriction requirement may be made.
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 8 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 8 recites the limitation "UV layer" in claim 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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 3 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang (CN 112282293 which has been machine translated) in view of Son (KR 20130076022 which has been machine translated).
As to claim 3 and 10, Zhang discloses a wood plastic flooring comprising a substrate layer made of a resin such as PE or PP, wherein the substrate comprises a toughening agent such as ethylene acrylate acid copolymer, filler such as calcium carbonate, a lubricant and a coloring agent such as carbon black. The flooring further has a decorative and wear resistant layer. However, this reference is silent to the base being PET and the amount of each component.
Son discloses a flooring material comprising a base layer made of PET, PETG, PE and PP with a decorative and wear resistant layer.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Zhang and used PET as the substrate material as it would be a suitable alternative. See MPEP 2144.04.
Further it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Zhang and Son and had the substrate layer comprises 70-90 parts of PET, 250-350 parts of filler, 10-15 parts of toughening agent, 10-15 parts of lubricant and .5 parts of coloring agent as one of ordinary skill in the art would know how to adjust the amounts of these materials to achieve a desired end product as one would know adding more filler would make the layer cheaper, the toughening agent would strengthen the layer, colorant would provide color and lubricant to help with processing of the layer. Therefore, absent unexpected results it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have formed the claimed layer. Since the flooring is made of the same material for the same purpose it would inherently have a density of 1.9-2.1 g/cm3 and a heating size change rate of less than .11%. In the alternative it would have been obvious.
Claims 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang (CN 112282293 which has been machine translated) and Son (KR 20130076022 which has been machine translated) in view of Eckel et al (US Publication 20090160103).
Zhang and Son render claim 3, obvious for the reasons noted above, however are silent to the specific lubricant. Zhang discloses a wood plastic flooring comprising a substrate layer made of a resin such as PE or PP, wherein the substrate comprises a toughening agent such as ethylene acrylate acid copolymer, filler such as calcium carbonate, a lubricant and a coloring agent such as carbon black. The flooring further has a decorative and wear resistant layer.
Eckel discloses the use of pentaerythrityl tetrastearate as a lubricant.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Zhang and Son and used pentaerythrityl tetrastearate as the lubricant as it’s a known lubricant and would be a suitable alternative. See MPEP 2144.06.
Claims 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang (CN 112282293 which has been machine translated) and Son (KR 20130076022 which has been machine translated) in view of Doi (WO 2016093313 which has been machine translated).
Zhang and Son render claim 3, obvious for the reasons noted above, however are silent to the decorative layer. Zhang teaches that the decorative layer can comprise PETG.
Doi discloses the use of titanium dioxide and other pigments/extender pigments for the decorative layer.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Zhang and Son and added titanium dioxide and other pigments to the decorative layer as these are known decorative pigments/materials used to provide a decorative effect. See MPEP 2144.06.
As to the amounts of material it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have added 90 parts of PETG, 3 parts of titanium dioxide, 6 parts of pigment as one would know how to adjust the color of the layer to provide for an aesthetically pleasing image. Therefore, absent unexpected results it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have formed the claimed layer. As to the amount of solvent the claims are directed to a final product and the solvent would not be present.
Claims 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang (CN 112282293 which has been machine translated) and Son (KR 20130076022 which has been machine translated) in view of Li (CN112009060 which has been machine translated) Dai (CN 109944411 which has been machine translated), Doi (JP 4679206 which has been machine translated) and Sybert (US Publication 20120252961).
Zhang and Son render claim 3, obvious for the reasons noted above, however are silent to the wear layer. Zhang teaches that the wear layer can comprise PETG.
Li discloses a wear layer for flooring comprising PETG, with an anti-UV agent and an antioxidant.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Zhang and Son with Li and added an UV agent and antioxidant to the wear layer to provide for better protection to the flooring.
Dai discloses a wear layer comprising PETG and PET as the materials.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Zhang, Son and Li with Dai and used PET as the wear layer as it’s a known wear layer used within flooring and would be a suitable alternative. See MPEP 2144.05.
Doi discloses a wear layer for flooring wherein the wear layer comprises zinc oxide and iron oxide and chromium oxide.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Zhang, Son, Li and Dai with Doi and used and used zinc oxide and iron oxide and chromium oxide within the wear layer as these materials would increase the abrasion resistance of the layer while also reading on a colorant.
Sybert discloses antioxidants within flooring such as bis(2,4-di-t-butylphenyl)pentaerythritol diphosphite).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Zhang, Son, Li Dai and Doi with Sybert and used the antioxidant of Sybert as it’s a known antioxidant used within flooring.
As to the amounts of material it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have added 80-90 parts of PET, 10-15 parts of antioxidant, .5-5 parts of UV absorber, and .5-5 parts of colorant as one would know how to adjust the materials of the wear layer to provide a desired protection of the layer as these materials would increase the protection of the decorative layer. Therefore, absent unexpected results it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have formed the claimed layer.
Claims 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang (CN 112282293 which has been machine translated) and Son (KR 20130076022 which has been machine translated) in view of Dai (CN 113978010 which has been machine translated).
Zhang and Son render claim 3, obvious for the reasons noted above, however are silent to the UV layer.
Dai discloses a flooring comprising a UV resistant wear layer for flooring, wherein the layer comprises a polyurethane acrylate, a photoinitiator such as hydroxycyclohexyl phenyl ketone, and silicon dioxide power for the layer.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Zhang and Son and added the UV resistant layer as suggested by Dai to the flooring as it would increase the flooring protection against damage and yellowing.
As to the amounts of material it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have added 20-30 parts of acrylate, 3-5 parts of photoinitiator, 5-10 parts of filler as one would know how to adjust the materials of the UV wear layer to provide a desired protection of the layer as these materials would increase the protection of the decorative layer. Therefore, absent unexpected results it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have formed the claimed layer.
Claims 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang (CN 112282293 which has been machine translated) and Son (KR 20130076022 which has been machine translated) in view of Zheng (CN 203905386 which has been machine translated).
Zhang and Son render claim 3, obvious for the reasons noted above, however are silent to a back cushioning layer.
Zheng discloses a flooring that comprises a substrate, a cushioning layer that has a thickness of preferably .5-1mm, a decorative effect and a wear layer 2. The cushioning layer provides comfort for people walking on the floor and prevent deformation as well as silence.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have added the cushioning layer of Zheng to the flooring of Zhang and Son because it would provide for increased comfort for people walking on the floor and prevent deformation as well as silence.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER M POLLEY whose telephone number is (571)270-5734. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday from 8am till 4:30 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, Mark Ruthkosky can be reached at 5712721291. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER M POLLEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1785
Prosecution Insights