DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-15 were rejected on 03/18/2026.
Applicant filed a response, amended claim 1 and cancelled claims 11 and 13 on 06/17/2026.
Claims 1-10, 12 and 14-15 are pending.
Applicant’s arguments filed 06/17/2026 have been fully considered and are persuasive with respect to claim 14. However, upon further search and consideration a new set of rejections has been made, as set forth below. Given that the rejections were not previously presented this Office Action is a second Non-Final Office 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 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 1-10, 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, 6-7, 10, 12 and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van Vlassenrode et al. (WO 2023/047290) (Van Vlassenrode), with claims 14-15 taken in view of evidence by Overview of materials for Polypropylene, Molded (MatWeb) and Durometer Shore Hardness Scale.
In reference to claim 1, 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). 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).
PNG
media_image1.png
451
912
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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).
In reference to claim 2, Van Vlassenrode 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 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 6, Van Vlassenrode teaches the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above. Van Vlassenrode further teaches the secondary substrate layer comprises polyvinyl chloride, polyethylene terephthalate and/or polypropylene (p. 2, lines 18-21; p. 5, lines 23-26) (corresponding to the first substrate is selected from the group consisting of a polyvinyl chloride resin layer, a polyethylene terephthalate layer, a polypropylene resin layer and a combination thereof).
In reference to claim 7, Van Vlassenrode teaches the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above. Van Vlassenrode further teaches the secondary substrate layer comprises a reinforcing layer (p. 6, lines 9-10) (corresponding to the first substrate comprises at least one reinforcing layer, and the at least one reinforcing layer isa arranged in the first substrate).
In reference to claim 10, Van Vlassenrode 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 claims 14 and 15, Van Vlassenrode teaches the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above. Van Vlassenrode teaches the primary and secondary substrate layer comprise polypropylene (p. 2, lines 18-20). As evidence by MatWeb, molded polypropylene has a Shore D hardness of 30-83 and a modulus of elasticity of 0.00800-8.25 GPa (i.e., 8-8250 MPa) (p. 2) (corresponding to the first substrate has an elasticity modulus of 100 MPa-300 MPa, and the second substrate has an elasticity modulus of 2000 MPa-3000 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 secondary substrate layer (p. 2, lines 29-30). Given that the Shore D hardness of the first and/or second substrate is 30-83, as evidence by Durometer Shore Hardness Scale the Shore A hardness of the first and second layer is 80 to over 100. Therefore, when the Shore A hardness of the first and/or second layer is 90 the Shore A hardness of the intermediate layer is at most 80 and when the shore hardness A of the first and second layer is 110, which is within the range disclosed by Van Vlassenrode, the intermediate layer will have a Shore hardness A of 100, which overlaps the presently claimed range (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 1-7 and 10-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van Vlassenrode in view of Long (WO 2021/227145), with claims 14 and 15 taken in view of evidence by MatWeb and Durometer Shore Hardness Scale.
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 and 4, 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 sad 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). 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 intermediate layer has a mesh structure, as presently claimed. However, 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 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 Long teaches the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above. Van Vlassenrode in view of 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 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 6, Van Vlassenrode in view of Long teaches the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above. Van Vlassenrode further teaches the secondary substrate layer comprises polyvinyl chloride, polyethylene terephthalate and/or polypropylene (p. 2, lines 18-21; p. 5, lines 23-26) (corresponding to the first substrate is selected from the group consisting of a polyvinyl chloride resin layer, a polyethylene terephthalate layer, a polypropylene resin layer and a combination thereof).
In reference to claim 7, Van Vlassenrode in view of Long teaches the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above. Van Vlassenrode further teaches the secondary substrate layer comprises a reinforcing layer (p. 6, lines 9-10) (corresponding to the first substrate comprises at least one reinforcing layer, and the at least one reinforcing layer isa arranged in the first substrate).
In reference to claim 10, Van Vlassenrode in view of 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 claims 14 and 15, Van Vlassenrode in view of Long teaches the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above. Van Vlassenrode teaches the primary and secondary substrate layer comprise polypropylene (p. 2, lines 18-20). As evidence by MatWeb, molded polypropylene has a Shore D hardness of 30-83 and a modulus of elasticity of 0.00800-8.25 GPa (i.e., 8-8250 MPa) (p. 2) (corresponding to the first substrate has an elasticity modulus of 100 MPa-300 MPa, and the second substrate has an elasticity modulus of 2000 MPa-3000 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 secondary substrate layer (p. 2, lines 29-30). Given that the Shore D hardness of the first and/or second substrate is 30-83, as evidence by Durometer Shore Hardness Scale the Shore A hardness of the first and second layer is 80 to over 100. Therefore, when the Shore A hardness of the first and/or second layer is 90 the Shore A hardness of the intermediate layer is at most 80 and when the shore hardness A of the first and/or second layer is greater 110, which is within the range disclosed by Van Vlassenrode, the intermediate layer will have a Shore hardness A of 100, which overlaps the presently claimed range (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 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van Vlassenrode and Van Vlassenrode in view of Long as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Baert et al. (NL 2029766) (Baert).
In reference to claims 8 and 9, Van Vlassenrode and Van Vlassenrode in view of Long teaches the limitations of claim 7, as discussed above.
Van Vlassenrode and Van Vlassenrode in view of Long does not explicitly teach the reinforcing layer having a mesh structure, as presently claimed.
Baert teaches a floor panel (Abstract). The panel include a core layer and at least one reinforcing layer (p. 15, lines 6-7). The reinforcing layer can be a reinforcing mesh comprising fiberglass, jute and/or cotton (p. 15, lines 8-12) (corresponding to the at least one reinforcing layer has a mesh structure; the mesh structure of the a least one reinforcing layer is made of glass fiber, jute and cotton).
In light of the disclosure of Baert, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the presently claimed invention to use a reinforcing meh comprising fiberglass, jute and/or cotton as the reinforcing layer of Van Vlassenrode and Van Vlassenrode in view of Long, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious engineering choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination (MPEP 2144.07).
Response to Arguments
In response to amended claim 1, which now requires “at least one side of the first buffer layer is provided with a buffer groove”, it is noted that Zhang et al. (CN 221722158) (Zhang), alone, no longer meets the presently claimed limitations. Therefore, the previous 35 USC 102(a)(1) rejections over Zhang are withdrawn from record.
Applicant primarily argues:
“It is submitted that the cited prior art documents fail to disclose, at least, the limitation of ‘a width of the buffer groove is less than or equal to a thickness of the first buffer layer", as recited in amended claim 1.
Van Vlassenrode discloses that on the edge of the panel, the edge of the intermediate layer 3 is located in a recess 33 (corresponding to the claimed buffer groove) (page 23, lines 18-19). This indicates that the width of the recess 33 is greater than a thickness of the intermediate layer 3 (see Fig. 6 for understanding), which is completely opposed to the requirement of the width of the buffer groove (i.e., less than or equal to a thickness of the first buffer layer).”
Remarks, p. 7
The examiner respectfully traverses as follows:
Van Vlassenrode teaches on the edge of the panel, the edge of the intermediate layer (i.e., first buffer layer) is located in a recess. 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 to have the intermediate layer include a groove extending from an upper surface to a lower surface and the groove within the intermediate layer and be equal to the thickness of the intermediate layer, in order to provide a recess in the edge of the intermediate layer and provide a space between the intermediate layers of the adjacent panels.
Alternatively, while Van Vlassenrode shows a recess that extends beyond the thickness of the intermediate layer in Fig. 6. 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 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).
Applicant further argues:
“Moreover, due to such distinction, the recess 33 of Van Vlassenrode fails to achieve the function required by the claimed buffer groove.
In the claimed invention, when an upper part of the sound-absorbing floorboard is applied by forces, the first buffer layer is squeezed to expand to the side of the floorboard; the buffer groove (17, 18) is arranged on the first buffer layer 14 to accommodate a protrusion formed by extending of the first buffer laver; the first buffer layer 14 extends but does not form a protrusion on the side of the floorboard, preventing a joint of two floorboards from seam forming, seam expending or unevenness of the joint (paragraph [0051]). In other words, buffer groove not only accommodates the protrusion caused by the expansion of the first buffer layer under stress, but also prevents overlarge joints between adjacent floorboards, which may lead to inadequate support of the floorboards and consequently cause sagging.
In contrast, Van Vlassenrode further teaches that in such embodiments, in the coupled state between two adjacent panels, the intermediate layers of the adjacent panels do not touch each other, and a space forms between the intermediate layers on the coupled edges of the coupled panels (page 23, lines 22-24). Van Vlassenrode merely considers forming a space during coupling, and does not contemplate accommodating the protrusion while preventing inadequate support of the floorboard that may consequently cause sagging. Van Vlassenrode therefore does not realize such a benefit of achieving both effects at the same time.
Accordingly, when each of the claimed invention and the prior art is considered as a whole, the prior art documents do not disclose the buffer groove with a width less than or equal to a thickness of the first buffer layer.”
Remarks, p. 7-8
The examiner respectfully traverses as follows:
While Van Vlassenrode does not explicitly disclose the recess in the edge of the intermediate layer prevents inadequate support of the floorboard that may consequently cause sagging, it is noted, “Mere recognition of latent properties in the prior art does not render nonobvious an otherwise known invention. In re Wiseman, 596 F.2d 1019, 201 USPQ 658 (CCPA 1979).” See MPEP 2145 II. Further, the fact that Applicant has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985).
Applicant further argues:
“First, the claimed property is not necessarily present in the prior art, and the predicate for the In re Best presumption, ‘identical or substantially identical in structure or composition’ as cited by the Examiner is not established.”
Remarks, p. 10
“Second, the mere fact that a person skilled in the art could adjust processing conditions to arrive at the claimed ranges does not make those ranges inherent.”
Remarks, p. 10
The examiner respectfully traverses as follows:
As discussed in the rejection set forth above, Van Vlassenrode teaches the first and second substrate comprise polypropylene (p. 2, lines 18-20). As evidence by MatWeb, molded polypropylene has a Shore D hardness of 30-83 and a modulus of elasticity of 0.00800-8.25 GPa (i.e., 8-8250 MPa) (p. 2). The modulus of elasticity of the first and second substrate of polypropylene overlap the presently claimed range. 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 before the effective filing date of the presently claimed invention to have selected from the overlapping portion of the range taught by the reference, because overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness.
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 secondary substrate layer (p. 2, lines 29-30). Given that the Shore D hardness of the first and/or second substrate is 30-83, as evidence by Durometer Shore Hardness Scale the Shore A hardness of the first and second layer is 80 to over 100. Therefore, when the Shore A hardness of the first and second layer is 90 the Shore A hardness of the intermediate layer is at most 80 and when the shore hardness A of the first and second layer is greater 110, which is within the range disclosed by Van Vlassenrode, the intermediate layer will have a Shore hardness A is at most 100, which overlap the presently claimed range.
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).
Applicant further argues:
“If the panel of Van Vlassenrode was modified with the intermediate core material of Long, the overall stiffness of the panel would increase, and the improved sound damping provided by the softer intermediate layer would be compromised.
A person of ordinary skill in the art would have no reasonable motivation to modify the panel of Van Vlassenrode (directed to improving damping and comfort), with the honeycomb or grid core material of Long designed for rigidity and strength.”
Remarks, p. 12
The examiner respectfully traverses as follows:
Van Vlassenrode and Long are both drawn to floor panels. Further, Long provides proper motivation to combine, namely, 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. Additionally, Long teaches because the plate is cured after a foaming reaction, the plate has sound insulation ([0007]; [0038]; [0056]). Therefore, the increase in stiffness would not necessarily compromise the sound dampening of the floor.
Therefore, Applicant's arguments filed 06/17/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Conclusion
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
Prosecution Insights