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 .
Claims Status
Receipt is acknowledged of applicant's amendment filed 10/28/2025. Claims 76-82 and 84-95 are pending. Independent claim 82 is amended. New claims 89-95 are added.
Response to Amendment /Argument
Applicant's arguments and amendments with respect to the rejection of present claim 82 under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being obvious over CN110128097 to Ke (“Ke”) as evidenced by Wang et al. (“Effect of Ion Corrosion on 517 Phase Stability”, Materials 2020, to Wang et al., “Wang”) in view of Baert et al. (US 9,611,659) have been fully considered but they are not found persuasive for at least the following reasons.
Applicant contents that (1) the primary reference Ke teaches away from using thermosetting resin because, per applicant, the veneer layer of Ke is bonded using latex adhesive (remarks, page 11, third and fourth para); and (2) Baert also does not teach using thermosetting resin adhesive, as Baert uses polyurethane reactive (PUR) or other adhesive between layers (remarks, page 12, first para); and (3) Ke in combination with Wang and Baert does not teach a coated panel as instantly recited in the amended claim 82, of which the thermosetting resin of the decorative layer bonds the decorative layer to the board (remarks, page 11, third and fourth para).
In response to applicant’s contentions (1) and (2) and (3), Applicant's arguments have been carefully studied and fully considered but they are not found persuasive for at least the following reasons.
As an initial matter, the instant claim 82 recites “…a decorative layer comprises the thermosetting resin, and/or an overlay paper and/or an underlay paper and/or a wood veneer”. The wood veneer layer is only an alternative element of claimed a decorative layer, and is not required to be present in the decorative layer of claim 82.
Secondly, applicant’s arguments regarding the adhesive resins (i.e., not thermosetting resin) taught by Ke and Baert are misplaced. The rejection is not based on substituting the adhesive layer for bonding the wood veneer to the board of Ke, with the adhesive taught by Baert.
In the present case, Ke teaches a coated panel (para [4] [6] [31], the coated panel/plate) comprising a board comprising 5Mg(OH2).MgSO4.7H2O (para [27]-[28] and [31], [41], Ke teaches the inclusion of a board/plate having a substrate 6 that is of main hydration product of 517 phase magnesium, see para [31], which is 5Mg(OH2).MgSO4.7H2O, as evidenced by Wang, see Abstract of Wang), wherein said coated panel comprises a decorative layer provided on said board (para [38], includes a wood veneer layer 4 provided on the board/substrate 6, and is considered being a decorative layer, meeting the claimed limitations).
It is noted Ke does not specifically teach the inclusion of a decorative layer comprises the specific thermosetting resin, and/or an overlay paper and/or an underlay paper and/or a wood veneer, as instantly claimed in claim 82.
In the same field of material for indoor building and construction panel use, Baert teaches a panel that includes a decorative rigid layer comprises thermosetting resin (of melamine) and a cellulose-based layer/paper layer (col. 2, lines 56-67, col. 3, lines 1-10, and see Fig. 2 and Fig. 3, and col. 6, lines 18-28). The decorative rigid layer of Baert includes a ply 30 of a paper layer and a cured melamine resin/thermosetting resin, and such decorative rigid layer of Baert is considered as to read on the instantly claimed decorative layer comprising thermosetting resin and an overlay paper. Baert teaches the inclusion of thermosetting resin, in particular of melamine because it offers more rigidity (col. 3, lines 1-5), meeting the claimed limitations of claim 89.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify panel of Ke in view the teachings of Baert, to replace the decorative layer of Ke with the decorative layer of Baert (i.e., that comprises thermosetting resin of melamine and an overlay paper layer, col. 6, lines 18-28, col. 2, lines 56-67, col. 3, lines 1-10), to provide an improved panel with a decorative top layer that offers decorative effect and with desired rigid property, which would have predictably arrived at a satisfactory coated panel that is the same as instantly claimed in claim 82 and claim 89, of which in such coated panel, the thermosetting resin of the decorative layer bonds the decorative layer to the board.
The rejections below are updated to address the present claims.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group II, claims 82-83, in the reply filed on 5/22/2025 is acknowledged.
Applicant's further traversal regarding Group II and Group IV that amended claims 85-86 should be examined with amended claim 82 because claims 85-86 depend from claim 82, in the reply filed on 10/28/2025 is acknowledged (remarks, page 9 and page 10). The traversal is on the ground(s) that CN110128097 to Ke (“Ke”) as evidenced by Wang et al. (“Effect of Ion Corrosion on 517 Phase Stability”, Materials 2020, to Wang et al., “Wang”) in view of Baert et al. (US 9,611,659) does not teach a coated panel as recited in the amended claim 82 (remarks, page 9 and page 10), and thus, the shared special technical feature between group II and group IV makes a contribution over the cited art. Applicant argued that the restriction between group II and group IV is not proper, and claims 85-86 should be joined with claim 82 (remarks, page 9 and page 10).
This is not found persuasive because the following reasons.
In the present case, the primary reference Ke teaches a coated panel (para [4] [6] [31], the coated panel/plate) comprising a board comprising 5Mg(OH2).MgSO4.7H2O (para [27]-[28] and [31], [41], Ke teaches its board/plate substrate 6 is of main hydration product of 517 phase magnesium, see para [31], which is 5Mg(OH2).MgSO4.7H2O, as evidenced by Wang, see Abstract of Wang); wherein said coated panel comprises a decorative layer provided on said board (para [38], includes a wood veneer layer 4 provided on the board/substrate 6, and is considered being a decorative layer, meeting the claimed limitations).
It is noted Ke does not specifically teach the inclusion of a decorative layer comprises thermosetting resin, and/or an overlay paper and/or an underlay paper and/or a wood veneer, as instantly claimed in claim 82.
In this regard, in the same field of material for indoor building and construction panel use, Baert teaches a panel that includes a decorative rigid layer comprises thermosetting resin (of melamine) and a cellulose-based layer/paper layer (col. 2, lines 56-67, col. 3, lines 1-10, and see Fig. 2 and Fig. 3, and col. 6, lines 18-28). The decorative rigid layer of Baert includes a ply 30 of a paper layer and a cured melamine resin/thermosetting resin, and such decorative rigid layer of Baert is considered as to read on the instantly claimed decorative layer comprising thermosetting resin and an overlay paper. Baert teaches the inclusion of thermosetting resin (of melamine) because it offers more rigidity (col. 3, lines 1-5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify panel of Ke in view the teachings of Baert, to replace the decorative layer of Ke with the decorative layer of Baert (i.e., that comprises thermosetting resin of melamine and a paper layer, col. 6, lines 18-28, col. 2, lines 56-67, col. 3, lines 1-10), to provide an improved panel with a decorative top layer that offers decorative effect and with desired rigid property, which would have predictably arrived at a satisfactory coated panel that is the same as instantly claimed in claim 82, of which the thermosetting resin of the decorative layer bonds the decorative layer to the board.
Therefore, for at least the reasons above, no special technical features are found in the claimed invention that define a contribution over the prior art. Thus, restriction is appropriate.
Claims 76-81 and 84-88 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention.
Claims 82 and 89-95 are being examined.
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.
Claim(s) 82, 89-90 and 95 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN110128097 to Ke (“Ke”) as evidenced by Wang et al. (“Effect of Ion Corrosion on 517 Phase Stability”, Materials 2020, to Wang et al., “Wang”) in view of Baert et al. (US 9,611,659).
Regarding independent claim 82 and claim 89, Ke teaches a coated panel (para [4] [6] [31], the coated panel/plate), comprising
- a board comprising 5Mg(OH2).MgSO4.7H2O (para [27]-[28] and [31], [41], Ke teaches the inclusion of a board/plate having a substrate 6 that is of main hydration product of 517 phase magnesium, see para [31], which is 5Mg(OH2).MgSO4.7H2O, as evidenced by Wang, see Abstract of Wang),
- wherein said coated panel comprises a decorative layer provided on said board (para [38], includes a wood veneer layer 4 provided on the board/substrate 6, and is considered being a decorative layer, meeting the claimed limitations).
Ke does not specifically teach the inclusion of a decorative layer comprises the specific thermosetting resin, and/or an overlay paper and/or an underlay paper and/or a wood veneer, as instantly claimed in claim 82.
In the same field of material for indoor building and construction panel use, Baert teaches a panel that includes a decorative rigid layer comprises thermosetting resin (of melamine) and a cellulose-based layer/paper layer (col. 2, lines 56-67, col. 3, lines 1-10, and see Fig. 2 and Fig. 3, and col. 6, lines 18-28). The decorative rigid layer of Baert includes a ply 30 of a paper layer and a cured melamine resin/thermosetting resin, and such decorative rigid layer of Baert is considered as to read on the instantly claimed decorative layer comprising thermosetting resin and an overlay paper. Baert teaches the inclusion of thermosetting resin, in particular of melamine because it offers more rigidity (col. 3, lines 1-5), meeting the claimed limitations of claim 89.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify panel of Ke in view the teachings of Baert, to replace the decorative layer of Ke with the decorative layer of Baert (i.e., that comprises thermosetting resin of melamine and an overlay paper layer, col. 6, lines 18-28, col. 2, lines 56-67, col. 3, lines 1-10), to provide an improved panel with a decorative top layer that offers decorative effect and with desired rigid property, which would have predictably arrived at a satisfactory coated panel that is the same as instantly claimed in claim 82 and claim 89, of which the thermosetting resin of the decorative layer bonds the decorative layer to the board.
Regarding claim 90, Ke teaches its coated panel (para [4] [6] [31], the coated panel/plate) comprising a board include at least one layer/the substrate (6) that is of main hydration product of 517 phase magnesium (see para [31]), which is 5Mg(OH2).MgSO4.7H2O (as evidenced by Wang, see Abstract of Wang), meeting the claimed material limitations of being a layer based on MgO and MgSulphate.
Regarding independent claim 95, Ke teaches a coated panel (para [4] [6] [31], the coated panel/plate), comprising
- a board comprising 5Mg(OH2).MgSO4.7H2O (para [27]-[28] and [31], [41], Ke teaches the inclusion of a board/plate having a substrate 6 that is of main hydration product of 517 phase magnesium, see para [31], which is 5Mg(OH2).MgSO4.7H2O, as evidenced by Wang, see Abstract of Wang), which is considered as being a layer based on MgO and MgSulphate, meeting the claimed material limitations;
- wherein said coated panel comprises a decorative layer provided on said board (para [38], includes a wood veneer layer 4 provided on the board/substrate 6, and is considered being a decorative layer, meeting the claimed limitations).
Ke does not specifically teach the inclusion of a decorative layer comprises the specific thermosetting resin, and a printed paper sheet and/or an overlay paper and/or an underlay paper and/or a wood veneer, as instantly claimed in claim 95.
In the same field of material for indoor building and construction panel use, Baert teaches a panel that includes a decorative rigid layer comprises thermosetting resin (of melamine) and a cellulose-based layer/paper layer (col. 2, lines 56-67, col. 3, lines 1-10, and see Fig. 2 and Fig. 3, and col. 6, lines 18-28). The decorative rigid layer of Baert includes a ply 30 of a paper layer and a cured melamine resin/thermosetting resin, and such decorative rigid layer of Baert is considered as to read on the instantly claimed decorative layer comprising thermosetting resin that is melamine and an overlay paper. Baert teaches the inclusion of thermosetting resin of melamine because it offers more rigidity (col. 3, lines 1-5), meeting the claimed limitations.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify panel of Ke in view the teachings of Baert, to replace the decorative layer of Ke with the decorative layer of Baert (i.e., that comprises thermosetting resin of melamine and an overlay paper layer, col. 6, lines 18-28, col. 2, lines 56-67, col. 3, lines 1-10), to provide an improved panel with a decorative top layer that offers decorative effect and with desired rigid property, which would have predictably arrived at a satisfactory coated panel that is the same as instantly claimed, of which the thermosetting resin of the decorative layer bonds the decorative layer to the board.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 91-94 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The prior art references of record, alone or in combination, do not teach or fairly suggest a coated panel defined by the structural and compositional limitations in the specific manner as instantly claimed (in claims 91 and 92, depending from claim 82), in particular, the coated panel calls for a board comprising 5Mg(OH2).MgSO4.7H2O and a specific decorative layer as so defined, of which the board comprises at least two layers having a mutually different composition, and each layer must satisfy the specific materials limitations as so defined, respectively.
Similarly, the prior art references of record, alone or in combination, do not teach or fairly suggest a coated panel defined by the structural and compositional limitations in the specific manner as instantly claimed (in claims 93 and 94, depending from claim 82), in particular, the coated panel calls for a specific board comprising 5Mg(OH2).MgSO4.7H2O and a specific decorative layer as so defined, of which the board comprises at least three layers in the layer order as so defined, and each layer must satisfy the specific materials limitations as so defined, respectively.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YAN LAN whose telephone number is (571)270-3687. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7AM-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, Aaron Austin can be reached at 5712728935. 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.
/YAN LAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1782