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 .
Summary
The Applicant’s arguments and claim amendments received on February 3, 2026 and Supplemental Responses received on April 9, 2026 and May 8, 2026 are entered into the file. Currently, claims 1 and 28 are amended; claims 5-7, 18, 20, and 23-25 are canceled; resulting in claims 14, 8-17, 19, 21, 22, and 26-28 pending for examination.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 06/10/2026 has been considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 28 are objected to because of the following informalities: The phrase “the at least one decorative layer” in line 16 of claim 1 and line 15 of claim 28 should be amended to recite --the at least one decorative top layer-- in order to maintain proper antecedent basis throughout the claims.
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 1-4, 8-17, 19, 21, 22, and 26-28 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.
Regarding claim 1, the limitation reciting “wherein the panel comprises at least one chamfer on at least one of said side edges” is indefinite in view of the limitation reciting “wherein the upper surface of the at least one chamfer is a cross-section of at least part of the decorative top layer” because it is not clear what structure is required by the claim.
It is noted that the phrase “side edges” recited in line 6 is interpreted as referring back to the “at least one pair of opposite side edges” of the core layer set forth in line 3. The limitation in line 6 therefore requires that the panel comprises at least one chamfer on at least one of the side edges of the core layer. However, the subsequent limitation in lines 7-8 requires that the upper surface of the chamfer is a cross-section of the decorative top layer. It is not clear how the upper surface of the chamfer can be a cross-section of the decorative top layer if the chamfer is formed on the side edges of the core layer.
It is noted that on page 2 of the Boon Declaration filed May 8, 2026, the Applicant states that claim 1 was amended such that the upper surface of the at least one chamfer is a cross-section of at least part of the decorative top layer, and the chamfer does not extend into the core layer. The claim does not expressly recite that the chamfer does not extend into the core layer; however, it is not clear whether the limitation requiring that the upper surface of the chamfer is a decorative top layer is intended to implicitly require such structure. In any case, it is not clear how the chamfer can be said to be “on” at least one of the side edges of the core layer if the chamfer does not extend into the core layer.
The instant specification discloses embodiments in which the chamfer extends only through at least part of the decorative top layer (e.g., Figs. 1-3) and in which the chamfer extends entirely through the decorative top layer and through part of the core layer (e.g., Fig. 4). It is not clear which of the above embodiments of the present invention are encompassed by the current language of the claim. For the purpose of applying prior art, the aforementioned limitation will be interpreted to mean that the panel has at least one pair of opposite side edges, wherein the at least one chamfer is provided on at least one of the side edges of the panel.
Regarding claim 28, the limitation reciting “wherein the panel comprises at least one cut chamfer on at least one of said side edges” is indefinite in view of the limitation reciting “wherein the at least one cut chamfer extends through at least part of the decorative top layer” for the reasons presented above with respect to claim 1. Specifically, it is not clear how the chamfer can be said to be “on” at least one of the side edges of the core layer if the chamfer extends through at least part of the decorative top layer, in particular in light of the Applicant’s argument that the chamfer does not extend into the core layer.
Regarding claims 2-4, 8-17, 19, 21, 22, 26, and 27, the claims are rejected based on their dependency on claim 1.
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 1-4, 8, 9, 11-13, 15-17, 19, 21, 22, 26, and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Loncke et al. (US 2018/0195291, previously cited) in view of Hannig (US 2015/0258845, previously cited) and Lee (KR 101225437, machine translation previously provided).
Regarding claims 1, 2, and 11, Loncke et al. teaches a floor panel (1; decorative building panel) comprising a substrate material (8; core layer) and a decorative top layer (6) formed by a wood veneer (7) provided by means of a layer of thermosetting resin (9) situated between the substrate and the decorative top layer ([0075]-[0076], Figs. 1-3, 6-8). The floor panel is provided with a lowered edge region (24; chamfer) which forms a bevel or chamfer on one or more edges, where the wood veneer extends from the surface of the substrate over the lowered edge regions ([0025], [0081], Figs. 6-8). The upper surface of the chamfer is therefore a cross-section of at least part of the decorative top layer, and at least part of the chamfer is linear, as shown in Figs. 6-8.
A transparent or translucent surface material (23; coating layer) is formed on the surface of the decorative top layer by a polyurethane-based and/or acrylate-based lacquer which is preferably hardened by means of radiation ([0017]-[0018], [0080]), thus forming a cured coating layer. As shown in Figs. 6-8, the transparent or translucent surface material (23) is formed of a coating having a first portion which covers at least part of the upper surface of the wood veneer (7) and a second portion which covers at least part of the upper surface of the chamfer (24). Loncke et al. does not teach that the first and second portions of the transparent or translucent surface material are applied separately, such that the first and second portions are considered to be applied to the respective upper surfaces of the decorative top layer and the chamfer prior to curing. As shown in Figs. 6-8, the transparent or translucent surface material defines an arcuately convex outer surface extending from the first portion to the second portion.
Loncke et al. illustrates an embodiment in Fig. 10 in which the angle of the lowered edge region (24; chamfer) is about 10 degrees, but does not expressly teach the angle of the chamfer being in the range of 2 to 9 degrees. It would, however, have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the angle of the chamfer, such as to a value within the claimed range, where a smaller chamfer angle may be desired for creating a seamless appearance between adjacent floor panels and for preventing the accumulation of dirt and debris in the grooves between adjacent panels. Moreover, it is noted that the shallow chamfer angle disclosed by Loncke et al. is so close to the claimed range that one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. In the case where the claimed ranges overlap, lie inside, or are sufficiently close to ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05(I).
Loncke et al. differs from the claimed invention in that the reference does not expressly teach a coating weight of the transparent or translucent surface material (coating layer).
However, in the analogous art of coated flooring panels, Hannig teaches a decorative panel (100) comprising a carrier (110; core layer) and a decorative layer (120; decorative top layer) applied onto the carrier ([0037], Figs. 1-3). The edge region of the carrier comprises a profile (130) with a decorative portion (131; chamfer) which consists of a chamfer of the edge, wherein the decorative layer (120) extends over the region of the decorative profile [0037]. A wearing and/or top layer (140; coating layer) also extends over the decorative profile (131) and is applied onto the decorative layer (120) ([0037], Figs. 1-3). Hannig teaches that the wearing and/or top layer may be laid onto the decorative layer as a prefabricated overlay layer and bonded thereto by means of pressure and/or heat, or may be applied in liquid form onto the decorative layer and subsequently cured ([0021], [0032]). Hannig teaches that by applying the wearing and/or top layer in an uncured state, the layer can be provided with a surface texture, for example by embossing, followed by a final curing step [0022].
50. Similar to the surface material coating taught by Loncke et al., Hannig teaches that the wearing and/or top layer may be made of a radiation curable composition applied at a concentration (coating weight) between 10 g/m2 and 250 g/m2, wherein the coating can be applied by means of rollers or pouring devices [0021]. Therefore, the coating forming the wearing and/or top layer (coating layer) is capable of being applied in one or more sub-layers with a weight within the claimed range to achieve a total applied coating weight within the claimed range. In the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05(I).
51. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the floor panel of Loncke et al. by applying the coating being applied at a sub-layer weight within the claimed range to achieve a total applied coating weight within the claimed range, as taught by Hannig, in order to enable the uncured coating to be further processed, e.g., by applying a desired surface texture thereto.
52. Loncke et al. in view of Hannig differs from the claimed invention in that the combination of references does not expressly teach a viscosity of the coating layer.
53. However, in the analogous art of coated flooring panels, Lee teaches a UV curable paint composition for application to flooring and veneer decorative materials, where the base material can be provided with a base paint, a bevel paint, and a top coat paint, and where the bevel angle is adjusted during processing to differentiate the floorboard design ([0002]; p. 2, Ln 62-p. 3, Ln 92; [0044], [0050]). Lee teaches that the top coat is applied to the bevel paint to adjust the final physical properties, wherein the top coat composition comprises a urethane acrylate oligomer and acrylate monomers (p. 12, Ln 461-476). Lee further teaches that the amount of urethane acrylate oligomer is adjusted to optimize the curability, viscosity, and gloss control of the coating, and that the amount and types of acrylate monomers are adjusted to optimize the viscosity, workability, curability, and physical properties of the coating ([0020], [0023], [0025]). Lee further teaches that the texture of the paint is influenced by the gloss and the amount of paint applied [0028].
54. Given that Loncke et al. teaches that the transparent or translucent surface material (coating layer) may be made of a similar material, such as a polyurethane-based and/or acrylate-based lacquer which is curable by means of UV radiation ([0017]), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have determined the optimum value of a result-effective variable such as the viscosity through routine experimentation, especially given the teaching in Lee regarding the desire to control the gloss and workability of the coating by varying the amounts of the components therein. See MPEP 2144.05(II).
Regarding claims 3 and 4, Loncke et al. in view of Hannig and Lee teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above. As noted above, Loncke et al. teaches that the decorative top layer (6) includes a wood veneer (7; décor layer) and a layer of thermosetting resin (9; transparent wear layer, base coating layer) (Figs. 1-3, 6-7). The thermosetting resin layer can include a layer of wear-resistant particles having a refractive index approximately the same as the resin, which may be melamine or melamine formaldehyde resin, such that they are hardly noticeable [0057].
Regarding claim 8, Loncke et al. in view of Hannig and Lee teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above. As noted above, Loncke et al. teaches that the decorative top layer (6) includes a wood veneer (7; décor layer) ([0008], [0075]).
Regarding claim 9, Loncke et al. in view of Hannig and Lee teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above, and Loncke et al. further teaches that the resin which forms the layer of thermosetting resin (9) situated between the substrate (8; core layer) and the decorative top layer (6) can be provided in the stack of layers, for example, in a liquid condition by means of rolling and/or spreading [0039]. Loncke et al. further teaches that the thermosetting resin can comprise coloring means, such as dyes or staining agents ([0058]), such that the colored thermosetting resin corresponds to the claimed décor layer formed by a decorative print which is printed directly onto the upper core surface of the substrate (core layer).
Regarding claim 12, Loncke et al. in view of Hannig and Lee teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above, and Loncke et al. further teaches that the transparent or translucent surface material (coating layer) may be made of a polyurethane-based and/or acrylate-based lacquer which is curable by means of UV radiation or electron beam radiation [0017]. Given that Lee teaches that a photoinitiator is necessary to cure the paint film when using a UV-curable paint ([0026]), one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the UV curable lacquer taught by Loncke et al. comprises a thermoset resin and a photoinitiator as claimed.
Regarding claim 13, Loncke et al. in view of Hannig and Lee teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above. As shown in Figs. 1-3 and 6-8, Loncke et al. teaches that the transparent or translucent surface material (23; coating layer) covers at least 1% of the upper surface of the decorative top layer (6).
Regarding claim 15, Loncke et al. in view of Hannig and Lee teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above, and Loncke et al. further teaches that the wood veneer (7) extends over the lowered edge region (24; chamfer) at least up to a point (26) where the veneer surface is situated on a level (L) in a horizontal plane which intersects the substrate (8; core layer) ([0081], Figs. 6-8). The chamfer therefore extends fully through the decorative top layer as claimed.
Regarding claims 16 and 17, Loncke et al. in view of Hannig and Lee teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above, and Loncke et al. further teaches that the gloss degree of the surface material can be set by means of regulating the energy during hardening, where a matte surface having a gloss degree of 10 or less, or a glossy surface having a gloss degree of 20 or more, can be obtained [0020]. Given that Loncke et al. does not teach the first and second portions of the transparent or translucent surface material being applied separately or from different materials, the first and second portions are considered to have substantially equal gloss levels. Furthermore, Loncke et al. teaches that the gloss degree can be 20 or more, which overlaps the claimed range of 40% to 60%. In the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05(I).
Regarding claim 19, Loncke et al. in view of Hannig and Lee teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above. As shown in Figs. 6-8 of Loncke et al., the lowered edge region (24; chamfer) has a substantially linear shape.
Regarding claim 21, Loncke et al. in view of Hannig and Lee teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above. Loncke et al. further teaches that the thermosetting resin (9; binder) may comprise wear-resistant particles (26; mineral particles) which may include aluminum oxide, silicon oxide, or silicon carbide particles ([0028], [0084], Fig. 7). Therefore, when the thermosetting resin comprising wear-resistant particles and the substrate are taken together to correspond to the claimed core layer, the core layer comprises at least one mineral material and at least one binder.
Regarding claim 22, Loncke et al. in view of Hannig and Lee teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above, and Loncke et al. further teaches that the pairs of opposing edges (2-3 and 4-5) are provided with mechanical coupling means (10; complementary coupling parts) ([0076], Figs. 1-3 and 10).
Regarding claim 26, Loncke et al. in view of Hannig and Lee teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above. As shown in Figs. 6-8 of Loncke et al., the upper surface of the decorative top layer (6) intersects with the upper surface of the lowered edge region (24; chamfer) to form an edge.
Regarding claim 28, Loncke et al. teaches a floor panel (1; decorative building panel) comprising a substrate material (8; core layer) and a decorative top layer (6) formed by a wood veneer (7) provided by means of a layer of thermosetting resin (9) situated between the substrate and the decorative top layer ([0075]-[0076], Figs. 1-3, 6-8). The floor panel is provided with a lowered edge region (24; chamfer) which forms a bevel or chamfer on one or more edges, where the wood veneer extends from the surface of the substrate over the lowered edge regions ([0025], [0081], Figs. 6-8). The chamfer therefore extends through (i.e., extends below the upper surface of) at least part of the decorative top layer, as shown in Figs. 6-8.
With respect to the limitation requiring that the chamfer is a “cut” chamfer, it is noted that the process of forming the chamfer by cutting is interpreted as a product-by-process limitation and does not determine the patentability of the product, unless the method produces a structural feature of the product. See MPEP 2113. In the instant case, the limitation specifying that the chamfer is “cut” does not impart any specific structural characteristics to the final product to differentiate from a chamfer formed by any other process. Even though Loncke et al. teaches its lowered edge region (24; chamfer) being formed by a heat pressing process, as shown in Figs. 9-10, there does not appear to be a nonobvious difference between the prior art structure and the structure resulting from the claimed method because Loncke et al. discloses a floor panel having a chamfered edge with a substantially identical structure to that of the claimed invention.
A transparent or translucent surface material (23; coating layer) is formed on the surface of the decorative top layer by a polyurethane-based and/or acrylate-based lacquer which is preferably hardened by means of radiation ([0017]-[0018], [0080]), thus forming a cured coating layer. As shown in Figs. 6-8, the transparent or translucent surface material (23) is formed of a coating having a first portion which covers at least part of the upper surface of the wood veneer (7) and a second portion which covers at least part of the upper surface of the chamfer (24). Loncke et al. does not teach that the first and second portions of the transparent or translucent surface material are applied separately, such that the first and second portions are considered to be applied to the respective upper surfaces of the decorative top layer and the chamfer prior to curing. As shown in Figs. 6-8, the transparent or translucent surface material defines an arcuately convex outer surface extending from the first portion to the second portion.
Loncke et al. illustrates an embodiment in Fig. 10 in which the angle of the lowered edge region (24; chamfer) is about 10 degrees, but does not expressly teach the angle of the chamfer being in the range of 2 to 9 degrees. It would, however, have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the angle of the chamfer, such as to a value within the claimed range, where a smaller chamfer angle may be desired for creating a seamless appearance between adjacent floor panels and for preventing the accumulation of dirt and debris in the grooves between adjacent panels. Moreover, it is noted that the shallow chamfer angle disclosed by Loncke et al. is so close to the claimed range that one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. In the case where the claimed ranges overlap, lie inside, or are sufficiently close to ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05(I).
Loncke et al. differs from the claimed invention in that the reference does not expressly teach a coating weight of the transparent or translucent surface material (coating layer).
However, in the analogous art of coated flooring panels, Hannig teaches a decorative panel (100) comprising a carrier (110; core layer) and a decorative layer (120; decorative top layer) applied onto the carrier ([0037], Figs. 1-3). The edge region of the carrier comprises a profile (130) with a decorative portion (131; chamfer) which consists of a chamfer of the edge, wherein the decorative layer (120) extends over the region of the decorative profile [0037]. A wearing and/or top layer (140; coating layer) also extends over the decorative profile (131) and is applied onto the decorative layer (120) ([0037], Figs. 1-3). Hannig teaches that the wearing and/or top layer may be laid onto the decorative layer as a prefabricated overlay layer and bonded thereto by means of pressure and/or heat, or may be applied in liquid form onto the decorative layer and subsequently cured ([0021], [0032]). Hannig teaches that by applying the wearing and/or top layer in an uncured state, the layer can be provided with a surface texture, for example by embossing, followed by a final curing step [0022].
Similar to the surface material coating taught by Loncke et al., Hannig teaches that the wearing and/or top layer may be made of a radiation curable composition applied at a concentration (coating weight) between 10 g/m2 and 250 g/m2, wherein the coating can be applied by means of rollers or pouring devices [0021]. Therefore, the coating forming the wearing and/or top layer (coating layer) is capable of being applied in one or more sub-layers with a weight within the claimed range to achieve a total applied coating weight within the claimed range. In the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05(I).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the floor panel of Loncke et al. by applying the coating being applied at a sub-layer weight within the claimed range to achieve a total applied coating weight within the claimed range, as taught by Hannig, in order to enable the uncured coating to be further processed, e.g., by applying a desired surface texture thereto.
Loncke et al. in view of Hannig differs from the claimed invention in that the combination of references does not expressly teach a viscosity of the coating layer.
However, in the analogous art of coated flooring panels, Lee teaches a UV curable paint composition for application to flooring and veneer decorative materials, where the base material can be provided with a base paint, a bevel paint, and a top coat paint, and where the bevel angle is adjusted during processing to differentiate the floorboard design ([0002]; p. 2, Ln 62-p. 3, Ln 92; [0044], [0050]). Lee teaches that the top coat is applied to the bevel paint to adjust the final physical properties, wherein the top coat composition comprises a urethane acrylate oligomer and acrylate monomers (p. 12, Ln 461-476). Lee further teaches that the amount of urethane acrylate oligomer is adjusted to optimize the curability, viscosity, and gloss control of the coating, and that the amount and types of acrylate monomers are adjusted to optimize the viscosity, workability, curability, and physical properties of the coating ([0020], [0023], [0025]). Lee further teaches that the texture of the paint is influenced by the gloss and the amount of paint applied [0028].
Given that Loncke et al. teaches that the transparent or translucent surface material (coating layer) may be made of a similar material, such as a polyurethane-based and/or acrylate-based lacquer which is curable by means of UV radiation ([0017]), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have determined the optimum value of a result-effective variable such as the viscosity through routine experimentation, especially given the teaching in Lee regarding the desire to control the gloss and workability of the coating by varying the amounts of the components therein. See MPEP 2144.05(II).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Loncke et al. (US 2018/0195291, previously cited) in view of Hannig (US 2015/0258845, previously cited) and Lee (KR 101225437, machine translation previously provided), and as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Vlassenrode et al. (US 2019/0211571, previously cited).
Regarding claim 10, Loncke et al. in view of Hannig and Lee teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above. Although Loncke et al. teaches that the floor panel has a relief (tactile texture) on the upper surface for imitating parquet ([0040], [0054]), the combination of references does not expressly teach that the decorative top layer includes a tactile texture with a particular depth.
However, in the analogous art of floor panels, Van Vlassenrode et al. teaches a floor panel (1; decorative building panel) which comprises a substrate (15; core layer) and a top layer (16; decorative top layer) which includes a décor layer (17) and a wear layer (18) ([0147], [0151], [0158]; Figs. 2-3). Van Vlassenrode et al. teaches that the upper surface of the floor panel comprises a relief (19) comprising embossed zones (22) which have a depth of at least 100 microns, or at least 0.1 mm, and are formed in the wear layer ([0012], [0157], Fig. 3). Van Vlassenrode et al. teaches that the relief structures are provided at this depth in order to simulate the texture of a natural product, for example the texture of natural wood ([0013], [0156]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the floor panel of Loncke et al. in view of Hannig and Lee by forming a tactile texture in the decorative top layer at a depth meeting the claimed range, as taught by Van Vlassenrode et al., in order to improve the natural look and feel of the upper surface of the floor panel. Furthermore, Van Vlassenrode et al. teaches a tactile texture depth which overlaps the claimed range. In the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05(I).
Response to Arguments
Response-Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In light of the amendments to claim 1, the previous rejections based on Chen et al. in view of Hannig, Lee, and Dempsey et al. and based on Chen et al. in view of Hannig, Lee, and Loncke et al. are withdrawn. New rejections based on Loncke et al. in view of Hannig and Lee are presented in the office action above to address the new combination of limitations in claim 1.
Applicant's arguments, see pages 8-17 of the remarks filed February 3, 2026 and pages 1-5 of the Boon Declaration filed May 8, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Furthermore, the Boon Declaration under 37 CFR 1.132 filed May 8, 2026 is insufficient to overcome the rejection of claim 1 as set forth in the last Office action or the new grounds of rejection presented above.
The Applicant first argues on pages 9-15 of the remarks filed February 3, 2026 that none of Chen, Hannig, Lee, Dempsey, Loncke, or Vlassenrode teaches the limitation of amended claim 1 requiring that the upper surface of the at least one chamfer is a cross-section of at least part of the decorative top layer. In particular, with respect to Loncke et al., the Applicant argues on page 14 that Loncke discloses a floor panel formed by stacking a base plate with a resin layer and one or more wood veneers, and then pressing the stack in a heated press, such that the chamfer is formed by pressing and does not “extend through” the decorative top layer.
This argument is not persuasive. First, it is noted that the Applicant’s arguments directed to Loncke et al. are not commensurate in scope with claim 1, as the claim does not specifically require that the chamfer has been “cut” or that the chamfer “extends through” the decorative top layer. Rather, claim 1 requires that the upper surface of the chamfer is a cross-section of at least part of the decorative top layer. The lowered edge region (24) of the panel taught by Loncke et al. is considered to meet this limitation because the upper surface of the lowered edge region which is formed, e.g., by a heated press (as shown in Figs. 9-10) is substantially identical to the claimed product in which the lowered edge region is formed from a cross-section of at least part of the decorative top layer. In other words, the wooden veneer which is formed to have a chamfered edge via pressing is not patentably distinct from an otherwise identical veneer having a chamfered edge which is formed by cutting, as in either case the upper surface of the chamfer is a cross-section of the veneer. Moreover, it is noted that Loncke et al. teaches that the decorative veneer layer may be obtained by sawing massive wood, in particular hardwood ([0059], [0064]), such that the cross-sectional “interior” of the wood veneer is structurally identical to the exterior surface thereof.
The Applicant further argues on pages 1-5 of the Boon Declaration filed May 8, 2026 that the claimed combination of viscosity (500 to 5000 Pa-s), coating weight (1 to 15 g/m2), and chamfer angle (2 to 9 degrees) produces an unexpected result in which the uncured coating prevents run-off and self-levels into an arcuately convex outer surface bridging from the flat decorative top layer to the chamfer surface. In particular, the Applicant argues on pages 2-3 that the specific combination of parameters produces an unexpected “rounded effect” where the coating bridges the linear cut and naturally settles into an arcuately convex outer surface after application and prior to curing, and further argues on page 3 that the prior art provides no expectation that combining a shallow 2 to 9 degree cut restricted to the decorative layer with a highly viscous, thinly applied coating would unexpectedly produce an arcuately convex outer surface.
These arguments are not persuasive, as they are not commensurate in scope with the claimed invention. In particular, the Applicant presents arguments directed to the unexpected nature of the rounded effect of the cured coating when applied to a “linear cut”, however, the claim only broadly recites that “at least part of the at least one chamfer is linear”. The claims do not specifically recite that the chamfer is entirely linear such that the intersection between the upper surfaces of the chamfer and the decorative top layer produces a sharply defined linear edge. Rather, the claim encompasses configurations in which the coating layer defines an arcuately convex outer surface as a result of being formed over an arcuately convex edge between the chamfer and the decorative top layer, such as in the panel taught by Loncke et al. Therefore, the Applicant’s arguments that the cured coating has an unexpected arcuately convex outer surface necessarily as a result of the fluid dynamic properties caused by the combination of viscosity, coating weight, and chamfer angle are not persuasive.
The Applicant’s argument directed to the chamfer being “restricted” to the decorative layer is also not commensurate in scope with the claims, as claim 1 merely recites that the upper surface of the at least one chamfer is a cross-section of at least part of the decorative top layer. The current language of the claims does not preclude the chamfer from being formed entirely through the decorative top layer and/or being formed at least partially through the core layer.
With respect to the allegations of unexpected results, it is noted that the evidence relied upon should establish that the differences in results are in fact unexpected and unobvious and both of statistical and practical significance. See MPEP 716.02(b)(I). Furthermore, to establish unexpected results over a claimed range, Applicants should compare a sufficient number of tests both inside and outside the claimed range to show the criticality of the claimed range. See MPEP 716.02(d)(II).
In the instant case, no evidence in the form of inventive or comparative data has been shown to demonstrate the significance or criticality of the claimed viscosity, coating weight, or chamfer angle ranges. It is noted that the instant specification broadly discloses the ranges of 1 to 50 g/m2, preferably 5 to 15 g/m2, for the sub-layer coating weight; less than 5000 Pa-s, preferably 800 to 1500 Pa-s for the viscosity; and 2 to 30 degrees, preferably 6 to 9 degrees for the chamfer angle in order to provide the best visual effects, with the surface tension and viscosity allowing for a rounded effect after curing (p. 5, Ln 31-p. 6, Ln 11; p. 7, Ln 24-30). The ranges disclosed in the instant specification as suitable for achieving the alleged unexpected result of a rounded effect are significantly broader than the ranges recited in the instant claims. There is no evidence of record (e.g., comparing values inside and outside of the ranges) to demonstrate that the currently claimed ranges are critical to achieving the alleged unexpected result.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 14 and 27 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art does not teach or render obvious the claimed invention of the instant application.
Independent claim 1 recites a decorative building panel comprising at least one core layer, at least one decorative top layer, at least one chamfer, and at least one coating layer. The decorative top layer is attached to an upper core surface of the core layer. The at least one chamfer is formed on at least one of the side edges of the panel and has an upper surface which is a cross-section of at least part of the decorative top layer. At least part of the at least one chamfer is linear. The coating layer is formed from a coating which is cured to obtain a cured coating layer, wherein a first cured portion covers at least part of the upper surface of the at least one decorative top layer, while a second cured portion covers at least part of the upper surface of the at least one chamfer, wherein the first and second portions of the coating are applied prior to curing of the coating layer, and wherein the cured coating layer defines an arcuately convex outer surface extending from the first cured portion to the second cured portion. The at least one chamfer has an angle which ranges from 2 to 9 degrees. The at least one coating layer has a viscosity between 500 and 5000 Pa-s at 25 °C in an uncured condition, wherein the coating is capable of being applied in one or more sub-layers with each sub-layer having a weight of 1 to 15 g/m2 to achieve a total applied coating weight of 1 to 15 g/m2 for each of the at least one coating layers.
Dependent claim 14 further recites that the at least one chamfer has a depth that is smaller than the thickness of the at least one decorative top layer.
Dependent claim 27 further recites that the first cured portion of the cured coating layer is thicker than the second cured portion.
Loncke et al. is the closest prior art to the claimed invention. Loncke et al. teaches a decorative building panel having a cured coating layer which defines an arcuately convex outer surface as claimed, but does not expressly teach or reasonably suggest that the depth of the chamfer is smaller than the thickness of the decorative top layer, or that the thickness of the cured coating layer is greater in the first cured portion as compared to the second cured portion.
Rather, Loncke et al. teaches that the lowered edge region (24; chamfer) of the wood veneer (7) extends to a level (L) in a horizontal plane which intersects the substrate (8; core layer) ([0081], Figs. 6-8), such that the depth of the chamfer in all embodiments taught by Loncke et al. is greater than the thickness of the decorative top layer. In each of the embodiments shown in Figs. 6-8 of Loncke et al., the arcuately convex outer surface of the transparent or translucent surface material (23; cured coating layer) is formed over a similarly arcuately convex outer surface of the decorative top layer and chamfered edge, such that the thickness of the first and second cured portions of the surface material coating layer are equal. There is no motivation in the prior art to modify the floor panel of Loncke et al. to possess the attributes recited in either of claims 14 or 27 in combination with the features recited in claim 1.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Morin (FR 2903131, machine translation via EPO provided) teaches a floor panel comprising a finishing film (135) formed by coating the upper surface with a product suitable for forming the finishing film, wherein the application of the layer (135) takes place after any chamfering or grooving of the edge of the panel (p. 8; Fig. 16).
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 REBECCA L GRUSBY whose telephone number is (571) 272-1564. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:30 AM-5:30 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Mark Ruthkosky can be reached at (571) 272-1291. 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.
/Rebecca L Grusby/Examiner, Art Unit 1785
Prosecution Insights