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 .
Response to Amendment
Amendments to the claims, filed on 1/12/26, have been entered in the above-identified application.
Any rejections made in the previous action, and not repeated below, are hereby withdrawn.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim Interpretation
The use of “and/or” is interpreted to mean optional limitations.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, and 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van Essche et al (US 2022/0389722 A1) in view of Li et al (CN 113755081 A).
Regarding claims 1 and 2, Van Essche teaches a marble tile-imitating stone plastic composite (SPC) floorboard (e.g., multilayer floor panel) comprising a wear-resistant layer (5); a decoration layer (3); and a SPC substrate layer (1); wherein the wear-resistant layer, the decoration layer, and the SPC substrate layer are arranged in sequence from top to bottom (abstract, para 16, 57; fig 1).
Van Essche teaches the substrate may comprise one or more layers and be foamed (para 57, 58, 66), so it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention make a substrate comprising three layers, since express motivation is given by Van Essche; and therein resulting in a marble tile-imitating stone plastic composite (SPC) floorboard comprising a first SPC substrate layer; a second SPC substrate layer being a foamed SPC layer; and a third SPC substrate layer; wherein the wear-resistant layer, the decoration layer, the first SPC substrate layer, the second SPC substrate layer and the third SPC substrate layer are arranged in sequence from top to bottom.
Regarding the limitation “the marble tile-imitating SPC floorboard is provided with a groove configured to recess downward through the wear-resistant layer and the decoration layer and extend into the first SPC substrate layer, and a lowest point of the groove is not lower than a middle point of the first SPC substrate layer along a thickness direction of the first SPC substrate layer; and the groove is configured to imitate a tile grout aesthetic effect;” Van Essche teaches the floor panel comprises a multi-layered top layer having a foamed decor layer and one or more chemically embossed an/or grouts or grooves; wherein the recess of the bevel is formed where the foaming is inhibited; (para 137, 139, 142-144). Van Essche further teaches the floor panel may be milled, and or the chemically embossed grout may be cut or milled through the middle to realize floor two panels with beveled edges (para 141, 143).
Therefore, Van Essche would have suggested two ways to form the groove (i.e., or desired grout aesthetic):
Chemically embossing and the foamed décor layer, wherein the wear layer and lacquer layer are formed on top resulting in a superior appearance, superior wear, and scratch resistance; or
Milling the floor panel as a final product resulting in a cruder or less aesthetic appearance, but saving several steps (e.g., placement of the foam inhibitor in making the foamed décor layer and chemical embossing the foamed décor layer).
Based on these two options, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of appearance to mill the groove in the final floor panel as a way to save time and possibly money (e.g., extra time to manufacture décor layer in use and placement of additional foam inhibitor) if a less aesthetic appearance if alright for the final appearance or application of the floor panel (e.g., builder-grade construction). Furthermore, it would have been obvious to adjust the shape and size (e.g., depth and shape) of the milled groove to optimize its appearance.
Van Essche further teaches the substrate comprises a synthetic or composite material, which is a blend (i.e., formed from a blended composite material), that comprises calcium carbonate (limestone), polyvinyl chloride and plasticizers (para 22, 57); wherein the calcium carbonate (i.e., filler) may be present in an amount from 40 wt. % to 80 wt. % based on the total weight of said substrate (para 62) and plasticizers may be present up to 15% based on the total weight of said substrate (para 63); so resins would be present in an amount from 5 wt. % to 45 wt. % based on the total weight of said substrate. These ranges substantially overlap that of the instant claims. It has been held that overlapping ranges are sufficient to establish prima facie obviousness. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have selected from the overlapping portion of the range taught by Van Essche, because overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness (MPEP § 2144.05).
Van Essche fails to suggest the substrate layer(s) comprise 12-20 wt.% of a first silicone-modified acrylic resin. However, Van Essche teaches the substrate comprises inorganic filler and other processing aids or additives used in the field of surface coverings (para 59, 64).
Li teaches epoxy acrylate modified silicone resin (i.e., silicone-modified acrylic resin) used in PVC plastic flooring (abstract); wherein the resin has excellent wear-resisting property; scratch resistance and high temperature resistance, and the coating surface is not easy to appear defect; the light transmittance is high, and the adhesive force is good (abstract, page 2). Li specifically teaches its ester ring epoxy acrylate modified silicone resin can act as an inorganic filler wetting dispersing agent (abstract).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to combine the resin for use in flooring of Li with the flooring substrate resins or compositions of Van Essche, since it is prima facie obvious to combine two compositions each of which is taught by the prior art to be useful for the same purpose, in order to form a third composition to be used for the very same purpose (MPEP § 2144.06 I). This combination comes with the additional motivation of producing a substrate with excellent wear-resisting property; scratch resistance, high temperature resistance, a coating surface wherein defects do not easily appear; high light transmittance, and adhesive force is good.
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to adjust the amount of the epoxy acrylate modified silicone resin for use in flooring of Li in the combination of Van Essche and Li to optimize the resultant properties of wear-resisting property; scratch resistance, high temperature resistance, appearance of defects, light transmittance, and adhesive force in the substrate.
Finally, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to use the substrate composition of Van Essche and Li for the first, second, and/or third substrate as suggested by Van Essche, since it is prima facie obvious to select a known material based on its suitability for its intended use (MPEP § 2144.07).
Regarding claim 4, Li teaches wherein raw materials of each of the first silicone-modified acrylic resin and the second silicone-modified acrylic resin comprise a silicone monomer (e.g., 2 - (3, 4-epoxy cyclohexane alkyl) ethyl trimethoxysilane) and a multifunctional acrylate resin (e.g., an epoxy acrylate resin) (page 3).
The limitations “wherein the silicone monomer accounts for 10%-50% of a total weight of the silicone monomer and the epoxy acrylic resin; and/or the first silicone-modified acrylic resin and the second silicone-modified acrylic resin each has a viscosity of 1000-2000 mPa-s.” appear to be optional and need not suggested by prior art.
Regarding claim 5, Van Essche teaches the décor layer has pronounced porous stone images and the structured surfaces have features such as marble veins which would have suggested or otherwise rendered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention wherein the decoration layer has a marble texture (para 30, 119).
Regarding claim 7, Van Essche teaches a UV-curable finishing top coat or lacquer may be provided directly onto the top surface of the wear-resistant layer (para 99).
Regarding claim 8, Van Essche teaches the substrate may comprise one or more layers (para 57), so it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention make a substrate comprising three layers, since express motivation is given by Van Essche.
Furthermore, Van Essche teaches the substrate(s) may have a thickness of 1 mm to 25 mm (para 69). This range substantially overlaps that of the instant claims. It has been held that overlapping ranges are sufficient to establish prima facie obviousness. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have selected from the overlapping portion of the range taught by Van Essche, because overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness (MPEP § 2144.05).
Van Essche further teaches the substrate(s) may be extruded (e.g., extruded foam) which would have suggested or otherwise rendered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention the first SPC substrate layer, the second SPC substrate layer and the third SPC substrate layer are prepared through co-extrusion.
Regarding claim 9, the limitation “planed” of the instant claim is a product by process limitation and does not determine the patentability of the product, unless the process results in a product that is structurally distinct from the prior art. The process of forming the product is not germane to the issue of patentability of the product itself, unless Applicant presents evidence from which the Examiner could reasonably conclude that the claim product differs in kind from those of the prior art (MPEP § 2113). No difference can be discerned between the product that results from the process steps recited in claim 9 and the product of Van Essche. Furthermore, Van Essche teaches the grouts or grooves may be cut or milled (para 141,143) which would have suggested that of being planed to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention.
Claims 3 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van Essche and Li as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Zhou US (2019/0016865 A1).
Van Essche as modified by Li teaches the marble tile-imitating SPC floorboard of claim 1.
Van Essche further teaches the substrates may comprise multiple layers and be foam or not foamed; and comprise virgin or recycled (i.e., foaming recycled material) PVC (i.e., a first, second, and third PVC), calcium carbonate, virgin or recycled synthetic materials such as acrylics, stabilizers, processing agents, other fillers or impact modifiers (i.e., toughening agents), and carbon black (para 22, 57-70). Li further gives an example wherein the substrate comprises lubricants (e.g., wax), processing aids (e.g., PA650 or a foaming regulator), stabilizers, recycled PVC, blowing agent (i.e., foaming agents), and carbon black (para 183). Li teaches the use of epoxy acrylate modified silicone resin (i.e., silicone-modified acrylic resin) (abstract).
Van Essche as modified by Li fails to suggest the first, second, and third substrates further comprise calcium-zinc stabilizers, internal and external lubricants, and yellow and white foaming agents.
Zhou teaches compositions for plastic floors (e.g., SPC) comprising a first primary component that is composed of polyvinyl chloride and calcium carbonate (para 3-6,105, 113). Zhou teaches the compositions may further comprises a first internal lubricant and a first external lubricant, a white foaming agent and a yellow foaming agent, and a calcium-zinc stabilizer (para 8-14, 46-54). Zhou further teaches its compositions produce a foamed layer and solid layers of a sheet that do not contain any glue-like component, and there is no gluing process in the production method, so it is very environmentally friendly and healthy; and the foamed layer is formed by foaming polyvinyl chloride and the solid layers made of non-foamed polyvinyl chloride are co-extruded on two sides of the foamed layer to form a core layer of the sheet, so that the sheet produced by the compositions and the method has excellent compression resistance, warping and shrinkage performance, and is waterproof, moisture-proof and mothproof. Hence, Zhou would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention a substrate comprising a first SPC substrate layer; a second SPC substrate layer being a foamed SPC layer; and a third SPC substrate layer.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to combine the composition for use in plastic floors of Li with the flooring substrate resins or compositions of Van Essche as modified by Li, since it is prima facie obvious to combine two compositions each of which is taught by the prior art to be useful for the same purpose, in order to form a third composition to be used for the very same purpose (MPEP § 2144.06 I). This substitution comes with the additional motivation of producing a SPC comprising a first SPC substrate layer; a second SPC substrate layer being a foamed SPC layer; and a third SPC substrate layer; wherein the substrate method has excellent compression resistance, warping and shrinkage performance, and is waterproof, moisture-proof and mothproof.
Regarding the amount of constituents in the compositions of the first, second, and third SPC substrate layers, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention would have known that by adjusting the amount of each constituent in the compositions the physical and mechanical properties (i.e, density, overall strength, impact resistance, flexibility, etc) of the first, second, and third SPC substrate layers and the entire substrate could be optimized. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to adjust the amount of constituents in the compositions of the first, second, and third SPC substrate layers to optimize the physical and mechanical properties of the first, second, and third SPC substrate layers and the entire substrate. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) (MPEP § 2144.05 II A).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/12/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding raw material (silicone-modified acrylic resin) of the first SPC substrate layer
Van Essche fails to suggest the substrate layer(s) comprise 12-20 wt.% of a first silicone-modified acrylic resin. However, Van Essche teaches the substrate comprises inorganic filler and other processing aids or additives used in the field of surface coverings (para 59, 64).
Li teaches epoxy acrylate modified silicone resin (i.e., silicone-modified acrylic resin) used in PVC plastic flooring (abstract); wherein the resin has excellent wear-resisting property; scratch resistance and high temperature resistance, and the coating surface is not easy to appear defect; the light transmittance is high, and the adhesive force is good (abstract, page 2). Li specifically teaches its ester ring epoxy acrylate modified silicone resin can act as an inorganic filler wetting dispersing agent (abstract).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to combine the resin for use in flooring of Li with the flooring substrate resins or compositions of Van Essche, since it is prima facie obvious to combine two compositions each of which is taught by the prior art to be useful for the same purpose, in order to form a third composition to be used for the very same purpose (MPEP § 2144.06 I). This combination comes with the additional motivation of producing a substrate with excellent wear-resisting property; scratch resistance, high temperature resistance, a coating surface wherein defects do not easily appear; high light transmittance, and adhesive force is good.
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to adjust the amount of the epoxy acrylate modified silicone resin for use in flooring of Li in the combination of Van Essche and Li to optimize the resultant properties of wear-resisting property; scratch resistance, high temperature resistance, appearance of defects, light transmittance, and adhesive force in the substrate.
With regard to the coating of Li specifically being that of a UV surface coating, it is noted that Li teaches “invention firstly uses acrylic acid and epoxy cyclohexane alkyl silane under the action of catalyst by ring opening esterification reaction, preparing an ester ring epoxy acrylate siloxane containing acryloyloxy, then using hexamethyl disiloxane; di-functional siloxane and trifunctional siloxane for hydrolysis condensation, synthesizing the ester epoxy acrylate modified silicone resin. the synthetic ester epoxy acrylate modified silicon resin can be used as inorganic filler wetting dispersant; the silicon hydroxyl in the structure not only can generate physical adsorption with the inorganic filler surface, but also can form chemical adsorption with hydroxyl condensation on the surface of the inorganic filler, the inorganic filler particles are fully obtained; uniformly dispersing effect; matching with the excellent performance of organic silicon resin, which can effectively improve the comprehensive performance of the coating” (page 4); so Li teaches the performance of a floor coating is improved when its compositions is used as inorganic filler wetting dispersant.
Regarding the groove structure
Regarding the limitation “the marble tile-imitating SPC floorboard is provided with a groove configured to recess downward through the wear-resistant layer and the decoration layer and extend into the first SPC substrate layer, and a lowest point of the groove is not lower than a middle point of the first SPC substrate layer along a thickness direction of the first SPC substrate layer; and the groove is configured to imitate a tile grout aesthetic effect;” Van Essche teaches the floor panel comprises a multi-layered top layer having a foamed decor layer and one or more chemically embossed an/or grouts or grooves; wherein the recess of the bevel is formed where the foaming is inhibited; (para 137, 139, 142-144). Van Essche further teaches the floor panel may be milled, and or the chemically embossed grout may be cut or milled through the middle to realize floor two panels with beveled edges (para 141, 143).
Therefore, Van Essche would have suggested two ways to form the groove (i.e., or desired grout aesthetic):
Chemically embossing and the foamed décor layer, wherein the wear layer and lacquer layer are formed on top resulting in a superior appearance, superior wear, and scratch resistance; or
Milling the floor panel as a final product resulting in a cruder or less aesthetic appearance, but saving several steps (e.g., placement of the foam inhibitor in making the foamed décor layer and chemical embossing the foamed décor layer).
Based on these two options, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of appearance to mill the groove in the final floor panel as a way to save time and possibly money (e.g., extra time to manufacture décor layer in use and placement of additional foam inhibitor) if a less aesthetic appearance if alright for the final appearance or application of the floor panel (e.g., builder-grade construction). Furthermore, it would have been obvious to adjust the shape and size (e.g., depth and shape) of the milled groove to optimize its appearance.
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 NATHAN L VAN SELL whose telephone number is (571)270-5152. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thur, Generally 7am-6pm.
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, M. Veronica 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.
NATHAN VAN SELL
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1783
/NATHAN L VAN SELL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1783