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 .
Response to Amendment
Amendments to the claims, filed on 9/30/25, have been entered in the above-identified application.
Any rejections made in the previous action, and not repeated below, are hereby withdrawn.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim Interpretation
The term “gloss adjuster” in claim 1 it being interpreted to be synonymous with other terms in the art such as matte or matting agent/additive, flatting agent/additive, and/or flattening agent/additive.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 1-6, 8, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over MacQueen (US 2001/0038910 A1) in view of Greyer (US 2018/0001696 A1).
Regarding claims 1 and 8, MacQueen teaches a decorative sheet or board (400) (e.g. coated substrate or floor tiles) comprising: a base material layer (403) (e.g., gel layer); a colored pattern layer provided on one surface of the base material layer (405) (e.g., print layer); and a first surface protective layer provided on a surface on a side opposite to the base material layer of the colored pattern layer (407) (e.g., clear wear layer); and a substrate layer (e.g., paper or felt) provided on a surface on a side opposite to the colored pattern layer of the base material layer (para 15, 106; figure 4b).
Regarding the limitation “having irregular shapes on a surface;” MacQueen teaches the wear layers may be provided with macroscopic texture (i.e., irregular shapes); so it would have been suggested or otherwise rendered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to provide the wear layer with a macroscopic texture since express motivation is given by MacQueen (para 84, 88, 100, 112-113).
MacQueen fails to suggest the height of the ridge-like parts is 15 um or less and a pitch between the adjacent ridge-like parts is 6.5 um or less.
Greyer teaches a component (e.g., floor panel or outer façade element) comprising a laminate and outer decorative surface; wherein the outer decorative surface comprises rib or groove structures (i.e., ridge-like parts) having a rib height at most of 10 µm and a groove width (i.e., pitch) of 0.5 µm to 100 µm (para 11, 16-20, 36); wherein the component has a decorative surface, of which the decorative surface has a good wear resistance and largely prevents objectionable fingerprints (para 8)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to texture the decorative sheet or board of MacQueen per the structures or texture of Greyer for decorative sheets or boards having a decorative surface that largely prevents objectionable fingerprints.
Greyer teaches the outer decorative surface comprises rib or groove structures (i.e., ridge-like parts) having a rib height at most of 10 µm and a groove width (i.e., pitch) of 0.5 µm to 100 µm (para 11, 16-20, 36). These ranges substantially overlap that of the instant claims. 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 at the time of the invention to have selected from the overlapping portion of the range taught by Greyer, because overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness (MPEP § 2144.05).
Regarding the limitation “wherein the first surface protective layer includes a core part which is a region of a lower layer in the layer, and ridge-like parts which are regions of an upper layer in the layer;” MacQueen teaches the wear layer has a thickness of 20 mils (i.e., ~508 um) (para 106) which is much thicker than the structure or texture as taught by Greyer; so it would have been suggested to or otherwise obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention the first surface protective layer includes a core part which is a region of a lower layer in the layer, and ridge-like parts which are regions of an upper layer in the layer.
Regarding the limitation “wherein the first surface protective layer does not contain a gloss adjuster, and glossiness of the first surface protective layer is 2.0 or less;” MacQueen suggests the use of flatting agents are optional, e.g., “may also be added” (para 69). MacQueen teaches the macroscopic texture may be controlled and provided by using a high viscosity resin coating (i.e., wherein the first surface protective layer is formed of a resin material having a uniform composition) devoid of texture producing particles (i.e., wherein the first surface protective layer does not contain a gloss adjuster) (para 11, 111, 113-114). McQueen further teaches the use of a microscopic and/or macroscopic texture to control the gloss or glossiness (para 6, 147). In addition Greyer teaches “[a] considerable anti-fingerprint effect is achieved by these irregular, fine line structures having ordered or more ordered and less to not at all ordered line structures. At the same time, the fineness of the linear structures means that there is a relatively low reflectance and thus a matt surface. In this case, the reflectance (degree of gloss) of the surface layer formed according to the invention can be varied by the structural geometry and the structural size, in particular the depth of the grooves” (para 15).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to adjust the microscopic and/or macroscopic texture of the first surface protective layer to optimize its glossiness.
The limitation(s) “wherein the ridge-like parts are formed using a transfer master plate formed by irradiating a surface of an ionizing radiation curable resin with an ionizing radiation of a specific wavelength and shrinking the surface of the ionizing radiation curable resin so as to form the irregular shapes having isotropically lined random fine structures, such that a first ionizinq radiation having energy capable of cleaving at least one of a carbonyl bond or a carbon-carbon bond is emitted to the surface of the applied ionizing radiation curable resin to shrink the surface of the ionizing radiation curable resin, the first ionizing radiation being an excimer laser and an incident angle of the excimer laser is 0°, and a second ionizing radiation is emitted to the ionizing radiation curable resin having the shrunk surface to cure the ionizing radiation curable resin, such that the transfer master plate having the irregular shapes on the surface is obtained, the second ionizing radiation being ultraviolet rays with a wavelength of 400 nm or less” of the instant claim is a product by process limitation and does not determine the patentability of the product, unless the process results in a product that is structurally distinct from the prior art. The process of forming the product is not germane to the issue of patentability of the product itself, unless Applicant presents evidence from which the Examiner could reasonably conclude that the claim product differs in kind from those of the prior art (MPEP § 2113).
No difference can be discerned between the product that results from the process steps recited in claim 1 and the product of MacQueen as modified by Greyer. However, MacQueen a process for making a coating on a substrate, comprising the steps of distributing a pre-cured coating mixture comprising a radiation-curable resin and an initiator over at least a portion of a substrate to form a pre-cured coating having a macroscopic texture, and radiation-curing the pre-cured coating to form a radiation-cured coating having the macroscopic texture (para 14); and further suggests the use of embossing to add texture (para 109); and Greyer suggests the use of an embossing pressure plate (para 13) and/or a laser to arrive at a random pattern having more ordered and more non-ordered structural elements in the form of grooves or ribs (para 39).
Regarding claims 2, 4, and 20, MacQueen suggests or would have otherwise rendered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention wherein the first surface protective layer is formed with the irregular shapes by providing a convex projection or a recessed groove on the surface; wherein the irregular shapes are formed in a curved shape in a cross-sectional view (fig 2-3).
Regarding claims 3 and 19, MacQueen teaches the macroscopic texture may be controlled and provided by using a high viscosity resin coating (i.e., wherein the first surface protective layer is formed of a resin material having a uniform composition) (para 11, 113-114).
Regarding claim 5, MacQueen suggests the use of a second surface protective layer (409) (e.g, top coat) provided on a part of a formation surface of the irregular shapes of the first surface protective layer (para 106, fig 4b)
Regarding claim 6, MacQueen teaches the top coat may be provided to provided further additional macroscopic texture to the flooring composition (para 112) and in addition the need for a more desirable uniform and random macroscopic texture (para 127); so it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to adjust the coverage of the second surface protective layer to optimize additional macroscopic texture to the flooring and to help provide a more desirable uniform and random macroscopic texture.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 9/30/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the limitation “wherein the first surface protective layer does not contain a gloss adjuster, and glossiness of the first surface protective layer is 2.0 or less;” MacQueen suggests the use of flatting agents are optional, e.g., “may also be added” (para 69). MacQueen teaches the macroscopic texture may be controlled and provided by using a high viscosity resin coating (i.e., wherein the first surface protective layer is formed of a resin material having a uniform composition) devoid of texture producing particles (i.e., wherein the first surface protective layer does not contain a gloss adjuster) (para 11, 111, 113-114). McQueen further teaches the use of a microscopic and/or macroscopic texture to control the gloss or glossiness (para 6, 147). In addition Greyer teaches “[a] considerable anti-fingerprint effect is achieved by these irregular, fine line structures having ordered or more ordered and less to not at all ordered line structures. At the same time, the fineness of the linear structures means that there is a relatively low reflectance and thus a matt surface. In this case, the reflectance (degree of gloss) of the surface layer formed according to the invention can be varied by the structural geometry and the structural size, in particular the depth of the grooves” (para 15).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to adjust the microscopic and/or macroscopic texture of the first surface protective layer to optimize its glossiness.
In response to applicant's argument that the decorative sheet of the instant claims has high oil repellency to which fingerprints are hardly attached while maintaining the performance required as the decorative sheet, the fact that the inventor 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).
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 NATHAN L VAN SELL whose telephone number is (571)270-5152. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thur, Generally 7am-6pm.
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, M. 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.
NATHAN VAN SELL
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1783
/NATHAN L VAN SELL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1783