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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 15 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In reference to claim 15, in each of lines 2 and 3 amend “an elasticity” to “the elasticity”, in order to ensure consistency and proper antecedent basis in the claim language. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-6, 8-10, 12 and 14-15 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.
In reference to claim 1, the limitation “the buffer groove extends to both ends of each of the at least one side of the buffer layer” in lines 13-15 and “a width of the buffer groove is less than or equal to a thickness of the first buffer layer” in lines 16-17. It is unclear how the buffer groove can extend to both ends of the at least one side and have a width less than a thickness of the first buffer layer. For the purpose of compact prosecution, the limitations will be interpreted as the buffer groove extends between both ends of each of the at least one side of the buffer layer (i.e., extends in a thickness direction of the buffer layer) and a width of the buffer groove is less than or equal to a thickness of the first buffer layer. However, clarification is requested.
Regarding dependent claims 2-10, 12 and 14-15, these claims do not remedy the deficiencies of parent claim 1 noted above, and are rejected for the same rationale.
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, 8-10, 12 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van Vlassenrode et al. (WO 2023/047290) (Van Vlassenrode) in view of Van Vlassenrode et al. (US 2024/0011306) (Christiaens), with claim 14 taken in view of evidence by Numerical study on the effect of CaCO3 ratio on the mechanical properties of CaCO3/PVC composites (Shijun) and Comparison of different Poly vinyl chloride (PVC) /Calcium Carbonate (CaCO3) blends and their properties (Abdullah).
In reference to claims 1, 6, 8-9 and 12, Van Vlassenrode teaches a panel including an intermediate layer having better sound damping and used as a floor panel (p. 1, lines 30-32; p. 2, lines 24-25) (corresponding to a sound-absorbing floorboard). The panel comprises a primary substrate layer, a secondary substrate layer, an intermediate layer and a top layer, wherein said intermediate layer is located between said primary and secondary substrate layer and said top layer is applied to the secondary substrate layer (p.1, line 30-p.2, line 2) (corresponding to a first substrate; a first buffer layer; and a second substrate; the first buffer layer is arranged between the first substrate and the second substrate). The intermediate layer comprises a foamed thermoplastic or thermosetting material (p. 2, lines 9-10) (corresponding to the first buffer layer has a porous structure).
The top layer comprises a decorative layer, a wear-resistant layer, a varnish coat or combinations thereof (p. 2, lines 15-17) (corresponding to a surface layer; a protective layer; a decorative layer). Fig. 6, provided below, shows the top layer 4 includes a decorative layer decorative layer 11 on the secondary substrate layer 2 and a wear-resistant layer 12 on the decorative layer 11 opposite the secondary substrate layer (corresponding to a protective layer; a decorative layer; the decorative layer is arranged on a second side of the protective layer; the first substrate is arranged between the decorative layer and the first buffer layer).
Given that Van Vlassenrode teaches the top layer that overlaps the presently claimed surface layer, protective layer and decorative layer, including a decorative layer, a wear-resistant layer, a varnish coat or combinations thereof, it therefore would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the presently claimed invention, to have the top layer include a varnish coat, wear-resistant layer and decorative layer, in this order from outermost surface to the second substrate layer, which is both disclosed by Van Vlassenrode and encompassed within the scope of the present claims and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Van Vlassenrode further teaches the edge of the intermediate layer is located in a recess 33 (p. 23, lines 18-19) (corresponding to at least one side of the first buffer layer is provided with a buffer groove; and the buffer groove extends to both ends of each of the at least one side of the first buffer layer; an opening of the buffer groove is configured to face towards an outside of a side of the sound-absorbing floorboard). In a coupled state between two adjacent panels, the intermediate layers of the adjacent panels do not touch each other, and a space formed between the intermediate layers on the coupled edges of the coupled panels (p. 23, lines 18-31; claim 43). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the presently claimed invention to have the intermediate layer include the recess extending from an upper surface to a lower surface and the recess being only formed in the intermediate layer (i.e., a width of the recess is equal to the thickness of the intermediate layer), in order to provide the recess in the edge of the intermediate layer and provide a space between the intermediate layers of the adjacent panels (corresponding to a width of the buffer groove is equal to a thickness of the first buffer layer).
Alternatively, Van Vlassenrode teaches a recess that extends beyond the thickness of the intermediate layer. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the presently claimed invention to have the recess extend only within the thickness of the intermediate layer, in order to provide a space between adjacent intermediate layers when panels are coupled together and since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984).
Van Vlassenrode does not explicitly teach the secondary substrate layer comprises at least one reinforcing layer wherein an upper surface and a lower surface of the at least one reinforcing layer are covered by the first substrate, as presently claimed. However, Van Vlassenrode teaches the secondary substrate layer can comprise a reinforcing layer wherein the reinforcing layer is a glass fiber layer (p. 6, lines 9-10).
Christiaens teaches a floor panel including a substrate, a decorative layer and a wear layer ([0001]). The substrate comprises polyvinyl chloride (PVC) ([0013]) (corresponding to the first substrate is selected from the group consisting of a polyvinyl chloride resin layer). A reinforcement layer is incorporated in the substrate, its presence improves indentation resistance, thereby allowing the use of softer substrate materials and/or backing layer ([0020]).
Christiaens further teaches the reinforcement layer has an open structure allowing substrate material to pass through the opening in the structure to thereby fixedly incorporate the reinforcement layer in the substrate ([0021]). The reinforcement layer is made of glass fibre in the form of a cloth or net ([0021]; [0041]) (corresponding to the at least one reinforcing layer has a mesh structure; the mesh structure of the at least one reinforcing layer is made of glass fiber). The reinforcement layer will improve the thermal dimensional stability of the substrate of the floor panel and is positioned within the substrate, such that the substrate is on an upper and lower surface of the reinforcement layer, to influence the stability imparted to the floor panel ([0021]; [0022]; [0047]) (corresponding to a first substrate comprises at least one reinforcing layer, and the at least one reinforcing layer is arranged in the first substrate; and an upper surface and a lower surface of the at least one reinforcing layer are covered by the first substrate).
PNG
media_image1.png
451
912
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In light of the motivation of Christiaens, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the presently claimed invention to have the secondary substrate layer of Van Vlassenrode include the reinforcement layer positioned within the substrate, in order to provide a secondary substrate layer with improved indentation resistance and stability, and thereby arriving at the presently claimed invention.
In reference to claim 2, Van Vlassenrode in view of Christiaens teaches the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above. Van Vlassenrode further teaches the intermediate layer comprises a material with a substantially open cell structure (p. 3, lines 21-22) (corresponding to the porous structure is a closed porous structure, a semi-closed porous structure or an open porous structure).
In reference to claim 3, Van Vlassenrode in view of Christiaens teaches the limitation of claim 2, as discussed above. Van Vlassenrode further teaches the foamed thermoplastic material is selected from the group of ethylene vinyl acetate (EVA), irradiation-crosslinked polyethylene (IXPE), irradiation-crosslinked polypropylene (IXPP), expanded polyethylene (EPE), polypropylene (PP) or combinations thereof (p. 4, lines 10-21) (corresponding to the porous structure is made from a material selected from the group consisting of expanded ethylene, expanded polyethylene, an ethylene-vinyl acetate copolymer, irradiated cross-linked polyethylene, polypropylene and a combination thereof).
In reference to claim 10, Van Vlassenrode in view of Christiaens teaches the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above. Van Vlassenrode further teaches a dampening layer applied to the underside of the panel (p. 20, line 31-p. 21, line 1) (corresponding to the sound-absorbing floorboard further comprises a second buffer layer; and the second buffer layer is arranged on a side of the second substrate away from the first buffer layer).
In reference to claim 14, Van Vlassenrode in view of Christiaens teaches the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above. Van Vlassenrode in view of Christiaens teaches the secondary substrate layer includes a substrate layer of PVC and a fiber glass reinforcement layer arranged within the substrate layer (Christiaens, [0013]; [0020]-[0021]).
Given that the secondary substrate layer of Van Vlassenrode in view of Christiaens is substantially identical to the present claimed first substrate layer in composition and structure, it is clear that the secondary substrate layer of Van Vlassenrode in view of Christiaens would intrinsically have an elastic modulus of 100 MPa to 500 MPa, and more specifically, 100 MPa to 300 MPa.
Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). See MPEP 2112.01 (I).
Van Vlassenrode further teaches the primary substrate layer comprises PVC and calcium carbonate (CaCO3) as filler (p. 4, line 29 – p. 5, line 5). The CaCO3 has a concentration between 10 and 80 wt% and the PVC has a concentration between 20 and 90 wt% (p. 14, lines 24-25). AS evidence by Shijun an elastic modulus of a CaCO3/PVC composite containing 10-30% CaCO3 is from 6944.4 to 9434.0 MPa (corresponding to the second substrate has an elasticity modulus of 2000 MPa-7000 MPa).
As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Van Vlassenrode further teaches the intermediate layer has a Shore A hardness that is 10 units lower than the Shore A hardness of the primary and/or secondary substrate layer (p. 2, lines 29-30). As evidence by Abdullah the Shore hardness A of a CaCO3/PVC composite containing 10 wt% CaCO3 is about 90 (Fig. 7). Thus, it is clear the intermediate layer has a Shore A hardness of at most about 80 (corresponding to the first buffer layer has a Shore A hardness of 80-100).
As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Claims 1-6, 8-10, 12 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van Vlassenrode in view of Christiaens and Long (WO 2021/227145), with claim 14 taken in view of evidence by Shijun and Abdullah.
It is noted that when utilizing WO 2021/227145, the disclosures of the reference are based on US 2023/0182437 which is an English language equivalent of the reference. Therefore, the paragraphs cited with respect to WO 2021/227145 are found in US 2023/0182437.
In reference to claims 1, 4, 6, 8-9 and 12, Van Vlassenrode teaches a panel including an intermediate layer having better sound damping and used as a floor panel (p. 1, lines 30-32; p. 2, lines 24-25) (corresponding to a sound-absorbing floorboard). The panel comprises a primary and a secondary substrate layer, an intermediate layer and a top layer, wherein said intermediate layer is located between said primary and secondary substrate layer and said top layer is applied to the secondary substrate layer (p.1, line 30-p.2, line 2) (corresponding to a first substrate; a first buffer layer; and a second substrate; the first buffer layer is arranged between the first substrate and the second substrate).
The top layer comprises a decorative layer, a wear-resistant layer, a varnish coat or combinations thereof (p. 2, lines 15-17) (corresponding to a surface layer; a protective layer; a decorative layer). Fig. 6, provided above, shows the top layer 4 includes a decorative layer decorative layer 11 on the secondary substrate layer 2 and a wear-resistant layer 12 on the decorative layer 11 opposite the secondary substrate layer (corresponding to a protective layer; a decorative layer; the decorative layer is arranged on a second side of the protective layer; the first substrate is arranged between the decorative layer and the first buffer layer).
Given that Van Vlassenrode teaches the top layer that overlaps the presently claimed surface layer, protective layer and decorative layer, including a decorative layer, a wear-resistant layer, a varnish coat or combinations thereof, it therefore would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the presently claimed invention, to have the top layer include a varnish coat, wear-resistant layer and decorative layer, in this order from outermost surface to the second substrate layer, which is both disclosed by Van Vlassenrode and encompassed within the scope of the present claims and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Van Vlassenrode further teaches the edge of the intermediate layer is located in a recess 33 (p. 23, lines 18-19) (corresponding to at least one side of the first buffer layer is provided with a buffer groove; and the buffer groove extends to both ends of each of the at least one side of the first buffer layer; an opening of the buffer groove is configured to face toward an outside of a side of the sound-absorbing floorboard). In a coupled state between two adjacent panels, the intermediate layers of the adjacent panels do not touch each other, and a space formed between the intermediate layers on the coupled edges of the coupled panels (p. 23, lines 18-31; claim 43). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the presently claimed invention to have the intermediate layer include the recess extending from an upper surface to a lower surface and the recess being only formed in the intermediate layer (i.e., a width of the recess is equal to the thickness of the intermediate layer), in order to provide the recess in the edge of the intermediate layer and provide a space between the intermediate layers of the adjacent panels (corresponding to a width of the buffer groove is equal to a thickness of the first buffer layer).
Alternatively, Van Vlassenrode teaches a recess that extends beyond the thickness of the intermediate layer. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the presently claimed invention to have the recess extend only within the thickness of the intermediate layer, in order to provide a space between adjacent intermediate layers when panels are coupled together and since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984).
Van Vlassenrode does not explicitly teach (1) the secondary substrate layer comprises at least one reinforcing layer wherein an upper surface and a lower surface of the at least one reinforcing layer are covered by the first substrate or (2) the intermediate layer has a mesh structure, as presently claimed.
With respect to (1), Van Vlassenrode teaches the secondary substrate layer can comprise a reinforcing layer wherein the reinforcing layer is a glass fiber layer (p. 6, lines 9-10).
Christiaens teaches a floor panel including a substrate, a decorative layer and a wear layer ([0001]). The substrate comprises polyvinyl chloride (PVC) ([0013]) (corresponding to the first substrate is selected from the group consisting of a polyvinyl chloride resin layer). A reinforcement layer is incorporated in the substrate, its presence improves indentation resistance, thereby allowing the use of softer substrate materials and/or backing layer ([0020]).
Christiaens further teaches the reinforcement layer has an open structure allowing substrate material to pass through the opening in the structure to thereby fixedly incorporate the reinforcement layer in the substrate ([0021]). The reinforcement layer is made of glass fibre in the form of a cloth or net ([0021]; [0041]) (corresponding to the at least one reinforcing layer has a mesh structure; the mesh structure of the at least one reinforcing layer is made of glass fiber). The reinforcement layer will improve the thermal dimensional stability of the substrate of the floor panel and is positioned within the substrate, such that the substrate is on an upper and lower surface of the reinforcement layer, to influence the stability imparted to the floor panel ([0021]; [0022]; [0047]) (corresponding to a first substrate comprises at least one reinforcing layer, and the at least one reinforcing layer is arranged in the first substrate; and an upper surface and a lower surface of the at least one reinforcing layer are covered by the first substrate).
In light of the motivation of Christiaens, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the presently claimed invention to have the secondary substrate layer of Van Vlassenrode include the reinforcement layer positioned within the substrate, in order to provide a secondary substrate layer with improved indentation resistance and stability.
With respect to (2), Van Vlassenrode teaches the intermediate layer comprises a foamed thermoplastic or thermosetting material (p. 2, lines 9-10). The foamed thermoplastic material is selected from a group consisting of ethylene vinyl acetate (EVA), irradiation-crosslinked polyethylene (IXPE), expanded polyethylene (EPE), polypropylene (PP), polyurethane (PU) or combinations thereof (p. 13, lines 25-30).
Long teaches a polyurethane composite floor ([0001]). The composite floor incudes an intermediate core material defining a plurality of filling gaps, each filling is filled with a rigid polyurethane foam ([0055]). Due to the foamed layer, the product has better dimensional stability, corrosion resistance, insect resistance, moisture resistance, high material utilization, very low VOCs release so the product is environmentally friendly and recyclable ([0059]).
The intermediate core material may be a honeycomb core material or a grid core material, or other porous core material ([0078]) (corresponding to the first buffer layer has a porous structure, a mesh structure or a combination thereof; the mesh structure is a honeycomb structure or a stacked network structure). The core material is made of a polymer material, such as PP, PE, PET, PC, ABS or PVC ([0077]).
In light of the motivation of Long, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the presently claimed invention to have the intermediate layer of Van Vlassenrode in view of Christiaens be include an intermediate core material defining a plurality of gaps filled with a rigid polyurethane foam, in order to provide a panel having better dimensional stability, corrosion resistance, insect resistance, moisture resistance, high material utilization, very low VOCs release so the product is environmentally friendly and recyclable, and thereby arriving at the presently claimed invention.
In reference to claims 2-3, Van Vlassenrode in view of Christiaens and Long teaches the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above. Van Vlassenrode in view of Christiaens and Long teaches the intermediate core material is a honeycomb core material or a grid core material, of other porous core material (Long, [0021]) (corresponding to the porous structure is a closed porous structure, a semi-closed porous structure or an open porous structure). The core material is made of a polymer material, such as PP, PE, PET, PC, ABS or PVC (Long, [0077]) (corresponding to the porous structure is made from a material selected from the group consisting of polypropylene).
Alternatively, Van Vlassenrode teaches the intermediate core layer can be made from ethylene vinyl acetate (EVA), irradiation-crosslinked polyethylene (IXPE), expanded polyethylene (EPE), polypropylene (PP), polyurethane (PU) or combinations thereof (p. 13, lines 25-30). These materials provide the panel with improved sound-absorbing properties and/or improved walking comfort (p. 13, lines 30-31).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the presently claimed invention to have the honeycomb core or grid core be made of ethylene vinyl acetate (EVA), irradiation-crosslinked polyethylene (IXPE), expanded polyethylene (EPE), polypropylene (PP) or combinations thereof, in order to provide the panel with improved sound-absorbing properties and/or improved walking comfort (corresponding to the porous structure is made from a material selected from the group consisting of expanded polyethylene, ethylene vinyl acetate copolymer, irradiation cross-linked polyethylene, polypropylene and a combination thereof).
In reference to claim 5, Van Vlassenrode in view of Christiaens and Long teaches the limitations of claim 4, as discussed above. Van Vlassenrode teaches the intermediate core layer can be made from ethylene vinyl acetate (EVA), irradiation-crosslinked polyethylene (IXPE), expanded polyethylene (EPE), polypropylene (PP), polyurethane (PU) or combinations thereof (p. 13, lines 25-30). These materials provide the panel with improved sound-absorbing properties and/or improved walking comfort (p. 13, lines 30-31).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the presently claimed invention to have the honeycomb core or grid core be made of ethylene vinyl acetate (EVA), irradiation-crosslinked polyethylene (IXPE), polypropylene (PP) or combinations thereof, in order to provide the panel with improved sound-absorbing properties and/or improved walking comfort (corresponding to the mesh structure is made from a material selected from the group consisting of ethylene vinyl acetate copolymer, irradiation cross-linked polyethylene and a combination thereof).
In reference to claim 10, Van Vlassenrode in view of Christiaens and Long teaches the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above. Van Vlassenrode further teaches a dampening layer applied to the underside of the panel (p. 20, line 31-p. 21, line 1) (corresponding to the sound-absorbing floorboard further comprises a second buffer layer; and the second buffer layer is arranged on a side of the second substrate away from the first buffer layer).
In reference to claim 14, Van Vlassenrode in view of Christiaens and Long teaches the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above. Van Vlassenrode in view of Christiaens teaches the secondary substrate layer includes a substrate layer of PVC and a fiber glass reinforcement layer arranged within the substrate layer (Christiaens, [0013]; [0020]-[0021]).
Given that the secondary substrate layer of Van Vlassenrode in view of Christiaens is substantially identical to the present claimed first substrate layer in composition and structure, it is clear that the secondary substrate layer of Van Vlassenrode in view of Christiaens would intrinsically have an elastic modulus of 100 MPa to 500 MPa.
Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). See MPEP 2112.01 (I).
Van Vlassenrode further teaches the primary substrate layer comprises PVC and calcium carbonate (CaCO3) as filler (p. 4, line 29 – p. 5, line 5). The CaCO3 has a concentration between 10 and 80 wt% and the PVC has a concentration between 20 and 90 wt% (p. 14, lines 24-25). As evidence by Shijun an elastic modulus of a CaCO3/PVC composite containing 10-30% CaCO3 is from 6944.4 to 9434.0 MPa (corresponding to the second substrate has an elasticity modulus of 2000 MPa-7000 MPa).
As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Van Vlassenrode further teaches the intermediate layer has a Shore A hardness that is 10 units lower than the Shore A hardness of the primary and/or secondary substrate layer (p. 2, lines 29-30). As evidence by Abdullah the Shore hardness A of a CaCO3/PVC composite containing 10 wt% CaCO3 is about 90 (Fig. 7). Thus, it is clear the intermediate layer has a Shore A hardness of at most about 80 (corresponding to the first buffer layer has a Shore A hardness of 80-100).
As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 15 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Van Vlassenrode, Christiaens and Long, either alone or in combination, do not teach or suggest the primary substrate is a foamed vinyl chloride substrate layer. Rather, as discussed in the rejection of claim 14 above Van Vlassenrode teaches the primary substrate layer comprises PVC and calcium carbonate (CaCO3) as filler (p. 4, line 29 – p. 5, line 5). The CaCO3 has a concentration between 10 and 80 wt% and the PVC has a concentration between 20 and 90 wt% (p. 14, lines 24-25). Thus, it is clear Van Vlassenrode, Christiaens and Long do not disclose the limitations of claim 15.
Response to Arguments
In response to amended claim 1, which now requires “the first substrate comprises at least one reinforcing layer, and the at least one reinforcing layer is arranged in the first substrate; and an upper surface and a lower surface of the at least one reinforcing layer are covered by the first substrate”, it is noted that Van Vlassenrode and Long (WO 2021/227145), either alone or in combination, no longer meet the presently claimed limitations. Therefore, the previous 35 USC 103 rejection over Van Vlassenrode and Van Vlassenrode in view of Long are withdrawn from record. However, the amendment necessitates a new set of rejections as set forth above.
Applicant’s arguments filed 09/24/2026 with respect to the teachings of Van Vlassenrode, Baert et al. (NL 2029766) (Baert) and Long have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant primarily argues:
“Applicant explains that ‘extends to both ends’ relates to the direction of extension of the buffer groove along the length of the side, while ‘width’ relates to the width direction of the opening of the buffer groove. They are not contradictory. The specification (paragraph [0051]) expressly discloses that the buffer groove is provided at a side of the first buffer layer, with its opening facing outward of the floorboard, and extends to both ends of that side (see Figs. 7-9 for understanding).
Specifically, ‘both ends of each of the at least one side’ refers to the two ends of the corresponding side (the side where the groove is arranged) along its length direction; and ‘extends to both ends’ means that the buffer groove extends along the length direction of the corresponding side from one end to the other end, not in the thickness direction of the first buffer layer. While, ‘width of the buffer groove’ refers to the dimension of the opening in the thickness direction of the buffer layer, which does not conflict with the overall extending direction of the buffer groove (along the length direction of the corresponding side from one end to the other end) and both can be fully satisfied concurrently.
Therefore, Applicant respectfully believes that a person of ordinary skill in the art can readily and clearly understand the meaning of the limitations of ‘the buffer groove extends to both ends of each of the at least one side of the buffer layer’ and ‘a width of the buffer groove is less than or equal to a thickness of the first buffer layer’ in light of the specification as a whole.”
Remarks, p. 7
The examiner respectfully traverses as follows:
The examiner agrees that the limitation “extends to both ends” relates to the direction of extension while the “width” relates to the width of the opening of the buffer groove. However, “extends to both ends” means to reach both ends. While it is clear that the buffer groove can extend to both ends of each of the at least one side of the first buffer layer and have a width that is equal to a thickness of the first buffer layer, it is unclear how can the groove extend to both ends (i.e., reach both ends) and have a width less than a thickness of the first buffer layer, especially when the buffer groove is provided at a side of the first buffer layer with its opening facing outward of the floorboard as required in claim 12. It is suggested to amend “extends to” to “extends between” thereby allowing the groove to extend to any points between the ends of the at least one side but not necessary to the ends of the at least one side, such an amendment would overcome the indefiniteness issue.
Therefore, Applicant's arguments filed 09/24/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
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 Mary I Omori whose telephone number is (571)270-1203. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-4pm.
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, Humera Sheikh can be reached at (571) 272-0604. 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.
/MARY I OMORI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1784
