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 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.
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, 7, 8 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over United States Patent Application Publication No. US 2015/0017461 (hereinafter “Lindgren”), and further in view of United States Patent Application Publication No. US 2015/0197942 (hereinafter “Pervan”).Regarding claim 1 Lindgren teaches a method of making a planar building panel (planar workpiece) 10, the method includes applying a first binder and free lignocellulosic or cellulosic particles on a first surface of a carrier for forming a first layer 11, applying a second binder and free lignocellulosic or cellulosic particles on the first layer 11 for forming a second layer 12, wherein the first binder is different from the second binder, and applying heat and pressure to the first and second layers 11, 12 to form a building panel 10 (abstract and Figure 2). Lindgren teaches the first layer 11 (corresponding to a component of the planar workpiece) is produced from a first mix (material) 3 comprising lignocellulosic particles, also defined as fibers, and a first binder (a production step of gluing the fibers), where at least the first layer 11 undergoes the application of heat and pressure to form the building panel (planar workpiece) 10 (paragraphs [0019], [0067] and [0068], and Figure 1). Lindgren teaches the first binder includes a melamine formaldehyde resin or a phenol formaldehyde resin, where the first binder (or binder of the first mix) is present in an amount of 45-60 wt% (paragraphs [0066] – [0068]), which overlaps the claimed range. Lindgren teaches the building panel (planar workpiece) 10 has an upper face and a lower face and lateral surfaces (Figure 2). Lindgren does not explicitly teach that after the formation of the building panel (planar workpiece) 10, additional steps of: providing the planar workpiece, applying a coating, and applying a decoration are performed. Pervan teaches a building panel (workpiece) having an upper face, a lower face, and lateral surfaces, comprising lignocellulosic fibers and binders, such as melamine formaldehyde resin, phenol formaldehyde resin, etc. (abstract, paragraph [0033], and Figure 1). Pervan teaches the building panel is formed after the application of heat and pressure (paragraphs [0072] – [0075]). Pervan teaches the building panel includes a surface layer 1 which may further comprise a protective overlay (coating) arranged thereon (providing the workpiece and applying a coating) (abstract and paragraph [0041]). Pervan teaches the protective overlay may be applied on the surface layer after pressing (paragraph [0070]), which corresponds to after the formation of the building panel, additional steps of: providing the building panel, applying a coating, and applying a decoration are performed. Pervan teaches the protective overlay is applied to increase wear resistance to the building panel and results in surface of the building panel which has a more attractive surface design and/or better surface properties than present panels (paragraphs [0013] and [0070]), which corresponds to providing a workpiece having an upper face, a lower face, and lateral surfaces, applying a coating, and applying a decoration. Lindgren and Pervan are analogous inventions in the field of building panels. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of the invention to modify the surface of the building panel (planar workpiece) 10 of Lindgren with the protective overlay of Pervan to increase the wear resistance of the building panel.Regarding claim 2 In addition, Pervan teaches the protective overlay includes a lacquer (heat-curable synthetic resin or varnish) (paragraph [0070]).Regarding claim 3 In addition, Pervan teaches the protective overlay (coating) includes a lacquer (applied as a liquid coating), a protective foil, etc. (paragraph [0070]). Pervan teaches known foils include paper or plastic foils (applied in the form of papers and/or in the form of films) (paragraph [0045]).Regarding claim 4 In addition, the protective overlay (coating) from Pervan is considered to meet the limitations of claim 4 because said protective overlay (coating) must necessarily have either a single layer or multiple layers as these two options encompass the entire range of possible layered configurations.Regarding claims 7 and 14 In addition, each of Lindgren and Pervan teach the surfaces of their respective building panels are embossed to form a structured surface, formed by the use of an embossed press plate (Lindgren – paragraph [0083]; and Pervan – paragraphs [0025] – [0026], and [0029]). Therefore, with Pervan’s teachings of applying a protective overlay in the form of a lacquer or protective foil on the surface layer after pressing (paragraph [0070]), the protective overlay is considered to at least partially conform to the embossed topography of the surface layer when applied thereon, which corresponds to a step of structuring the coating, by mechanical means, at least on a portion of an upper face, a lower face, or a lateral face.Regarding claim 8 In addition, Pervan teaches the protective overlay includes wear resistant particles (aggregates) (paragraphs [0054] and [0070]).
Claims 5 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lindgren and Pervan as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of United States Patent Number 5,462,792 (hereinafter “Jong”).Regarding claims 5 and 15 The limitations from claim 1 have been set forth above. In addition, each of Lindgren and Pervan teach a general desire to cure the components which make up their building panels to yield the final product (Lindgren – paragraphs [0013], [0078], [0083] – [0084], [0086], etc.; and Pervan – paragraphs [0026], etc.). Pervan also teaches the protective overlay includes a lacquer (paragraph [0070]). Pervan does not explicitly teach the protective overlay (coating), such as the lacquer, is: cured under the effect of pressure and/or temperature; and/or includes a step of curing. Jong teaches a sheet material including a textured coating applied thereon, where the sheet material is formed by a substrate having on at least one face a cured, heat-dried or heat-cured lacquer layer (abstract). Jong teaches the lacquer layer may be cured at a temperature of about 325°C for 24 seconds (cured under the effect of temperature) (column 2, lines 40-45). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to introduce the lacquer material of Pervan to the heat-curing step, as taught by Jong, to provide a cured protective overlay (coating) to the building panel, which is desired by each of Lindgren and Pervan.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 5, filed 21 October 2025, with respect to the rejection of claims 1-5, 7, 8, 14, and 15 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claims 1-5, 7, 8, 14, and 15 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 21 October 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The applicant argued a person having ordinary skill in the art would not look to Pervan to coat the panel of Lindgren because Lindgren teaches a surface material having 60% thermosetting resin, and Pervan teaches a surface material of fiberboard, plywood, particle board or OSB. The examiner respectfully disagrees. While it is noted that Pervan does teach fiberboard, plywood, particle board or OSB materials, these materials are directed to what is contained in the wood fiber based core. Therefore, due to the fact that Pervan also teaches different layers 1, 3, and 7 are applied to either surface of the wood fiber based core 2, a person having ordinary skill in the art would not consider the compatibility of the protective overlay with the core because the protective overlay would not be in contact with the core. Furthermore, Pervan teaches the protective overlay may be provided over a veneer containing holes, cracks, or other features where a lower sub-layer 3 may fill in these features, which would result in the sub-layer being in contact with said protective overlay. Pervan teaches the sub-layer 3 comprises lignocellulosic fibers and binders, such as melamine formaldehyde resin, phenol formaldehyde resin, etc., which is not different than Lindgren or the pending claims. See abstract, paragraphs [0023], [0032] – [0033], [0040] and [0041], and Figure 1 from Pervan. The applicant argued Pervan does not disclose any information as to how coatings may react with a surface which is mainly thermosetting resin. The examiner respectfully disagrees and contends that Pervan does teach their protective overlay (coating) may have contact with the thermosetting resin containing sub-layer and Pervan does not highlight any potential issues, such as the issues highlighted by the applicant. In other words, the applicant’s position is conclusory in nature and is not supported by the prior art references.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 BRIAN HANDVILLE whose telephone number is (571)272-5074. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Thursday, from 9 am to 4 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, Veronica Ewald can be reached at (571) 272-8519. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/BRIAN HANDVILLE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1783