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 July 19, 2026 are entered into the file. Currently, claim 1 is amended; claims 5 and 9 are canceled; claims 15-17 are withdrawn; resulting in claims 1-4, 6-8, and 10-14 pending for examination.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-4, 6-8, and 10-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 1, the newly added limitation reciting “the linear portions are positioned in the inner portions of each of the raised portions and not on the edge portions of the raised portions” is considered new matter that is not adequately disclosed by the instant specification or drawings. Although the instant specification discloses embodiment in which the linear portions are positioned in the inner portions of each of the raised portions, the disclosure does not support the newly claimed feature in which the linear portions are not positioned on the edge portions of the raised portions.
On page 5 of the remarks filed July 19, 2026, the Applicant cites claim 1, paragraph [0115] of the pg-pub, and Figs. 2-13 as providing support for the amendments to the claims. Paragraph [0115] is directed to the embodiment shown in Fig. 3 and discloses that the recessed portions (47) serving as the linear portions (49) have certain shapes or configurations. Paragraph [0115], however, is silent to a relative configuration between the linear portions and the raised portions.
Figs. 3-10 are said to be planar views illustrating examples of the raised portions (43) in an enlarged manner (see [0025] of the as-filed specification). Although each of these figures illustrates configurations in which linear portions (49) are positioned in the inner portion of a raised portion (43), the figures do not identify an “edge portion” of the raised portions (43). Given that these figures are said to illustrate the raised portions in an enlarged manner, it is not clear whether the figures show an edge portion of any of the raised portions, or if the enlarged views only show the inner portion of each of the raised portions. Indeed, in several of the embodiments shown in Figs. 3-12, if the entire region shown is taken to correspond to a single raised portion (43), the edge portions of the raised portions do have recessed portions (47), i.e., linear portions (49), positioned thereon. For example, see annotated Fig. 10 below, where the right side of the raised portion is shown as having flat recessed portions (47) positioned at an edge portion located next to the rightmost protruding portion (46).
PNG
media_image1.png
374
608
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claims 2-4, 6-8, and 10-14, the claims are rejected based on their dependency on claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 2, 8, and 10-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Wiegelmann et al. (US 2015/0030817, previously cited).
Regarding claim 1, Wiegelmann et al. teaches a panel (decorative sheet) comprising a substrate (2), a primer layer (11) arranged on the visible side of the substrate, a décor (12; design layer) formed on the primer layer and sealed with a transparent protective layer (13), and a three-dimensional structure (8) applied to the protective layer ([0023], [0047], Figs. 3-4). As shown in Fig. 3, reproduced below, the three-dimensional structure comprises layers (8.11, 8.12, 8.13) made of a transparently-curing synthetic resin or lacquer which are overlaid on the décor [0047].
PNG
media_image2.png
293
834
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Wiegelmann et al. further teaches that the décor is a wood imitating décor (includes a pattern of one continuous surface of wood), and that indentations or pores (8.2) located between elevations (8.1) in the three-dimensional structure (8) correspond to locations of the wood imitating décor representing wood pores ([0001], [0032], Figs. 3-4). The upper two layers (8.12, 8.13) of the elevations shown in Figs. 3-4 correspond to the claimed raised layer including a raised region having raised portions each including an uneven surface like the surface of wood, wherein the indentations or pores (8.2) located between adjacent raised portions correspond to the claimed non-raised region. The uneven surface includes protruding portions relative to the adjacent layer (8.11), while the steps (8.23) between the layers (8.11, 8.12) represent recessed portions in the uneven surface which include a bottom surface composed of a surface of a layer (8.11) adjacent to the raised layer. As shown in annotated Fig. 4 below, the steps (8.23; recessed portions) include linear portions of which the orientations and lengths are not constant, wherein the steps surround a full perimeter of the raised layers (8.12, 8.13) of at least part of the elevations (8.1). When the area including the four elevations (8.1) shown in Fig. 4 is taken to correspond to a single raised portion, the steps (8.23) positioned in the inner portion of the raised portion correspond to the claimed linear portions, while the indentations (8.2) located adjacent to the outer elevations can be taken to correspond to the claimed edge portions in which steps (8.23) are not positioned.
PNG
media_image3.png
410
808
media_image3.png
Greyscale
As shown in Figs. 3-4, an interval between two adjacent raised portions (8.21, 8.22) is larger than two times a width of the linear portions of the steps (8.23). Weigelmann et al. further teaches that the multi-layer construction of the three-dimensional structure produces decorative panels with a relatively large structural depth ([0047]), such that the protruding portions and recessed portions are capable of imparting a tactile sensation on inner portions of each of the raised portions.
Regarding claim 2, Wiegelmann et al. teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above. As noted above, Wiegelmann et al. teaches that the positions of the elevations (8.1) are matched to the wood imitating decor ([0001], [0032], Fig. 4), such that the raised portions each include a shape and a layout that imitate (i.e., reproduce) the surface of wood.
Regarding claims 8 and 10, Wiegelmann et al. teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above. As shown in Fig. 4, the linear portions represented by the steps (8.23) between the layers (8.11, 8.12) include curved-line shapes (see leftmost elevation) and straight-line shapes (see rightmost elevation).
Regarding claim 11, Wiegelmann et al. teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above. As shown in Fig. 4, at least part of the linear portions of the steps (8.23) include one end portion positioned inside the raised portions represented by elevations (8.1).
Regarding claim 12, Wiegelmann et al. teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above. As shown in annotated Fig. 4 below, orientations of two linear portions of the steps (8.23) included in one of the raised portions are within an angle range of 50° or less.
PNG
media_image4.png
328
602
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 13, Wiegelmann et al. teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above. As shown in annotated Fig. 4 below, orientations of two linear portions of the steps (8.23) included in one of the raised portions are inclined by 70° or more
PNG
media_image5.png
328
602
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 14, Wiegelmann et al. teaches all of the limitations of claim 13 above. As shown in Fig. 4 above, each of the linear portions of the steps (8.23) includes small segments that are linear, wherein at an end portion thereof, each of the small segments connects to other small segments, makes up an end portion of the linear portion, or is positioned at an edge of the raised portion.
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 3 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wiegelmann et al. (US 2015/0030817, previously cited) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Higa et al. (JP 2018-167435, machine translation previously provided).
Regarding claims 3 and 4, Wiegelmann et al. teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above. Although Wiegelmann et al. teaches that the elevations (8.1) and indentations (8.2) may be matched to the décor such that, for example, corresponding indentations are arranged to fit precisely on locations of a wood imitating décor representing wood pores, thus forming a synchronous pore structure ([0032]), the reference does not expressly teach that the decor includes first and second regions having different densities in which the raised region is overlaid only on one of the first and second regions.
However, in the analogous art of decorative sheets, Higa et al. teaches a decorative sheet (1) comprising a substrate (2), a picture pattern layer (3; design layer), a first resin layer (4), a second resin layer (5; raised layer), and protrusions (6) ([0025], Fig. 1). Higa et al. teaches that the picture pattern layer (3) has a pattern that imitates wood grain, where the wood grain pattern is formed so that grain portion (3a) has a dark color [0026]. The grain portion (3a) therefore corresponds to the claimed second region in which the wood grain pattern has a higher density than the remaining areas of the picture pattern layer (3), which correspond to the claimed first region.
Higa et al. teaches that the second resin layer (5) is not formed on the grain portion (3a) of the picture pattern layer so as to be in harmony with the wood grain pattern ([0028], Fig. 1), such that the raised portion is overlaid only on the first region of the picture pattern layer. As shown in Figs. 1 and 2, the grain portion (3a) of the picture pattern layer is shown as elongated lines formed in a dark color, such that the pattern formed by the grain portion corresponds to one or more of a duct and a latewood.
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 panel taught by Wiegelmann et al. by forming the decor to have first and second regions in which the pattern in the second region includes a duct or latewood and has a higher density than the first region and in which the elevations are overlaid only on the first region, as taught by Higa et al., in order for the elevations and the printed décor to cooperate to form a synchronous wood grain pattern.
Claims 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wiegelmann et al. (US 2015/0030817, previously cited) as applied to claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 6, Wiegelmann et al. teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above but does not expressly teach that widths of the linear portions are 250 µm or less. It would, however, have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the linear portions to have widths of 250 µm or less, in order to impart a desired pattern and/or surface texture to the panel. Furthermore, it is well settled that changes in size are prima facie obvious and are not sufficient to patentably distinguish over the prior art. See MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A).
Regarding claim 7, Wiegelmann et al. teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above but does not expressly teach that an interval between two adjacent raised regions is 1 mm or more. It would, however, have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the raised regions such that an interval between two adjacent raised regions is 1 mm or more, in order to impart a desired pattern and/or surface texture to the panel. Furthermore, it is well settled that changes in size are prima facie obvious and are not sufficient to patentably distinguish over the prior art. See MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A).
Response to Arguments
Response-Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
Applicant's arguments, see pages 5-8 of the remarks filed July 19, 2026, with respect to amended claim 1 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The Applicant argues that amended claim 1 specified that the linear portions are positioned in the inner portions of each of the raised portions and not on the edge portions of the raised portions, such that Wiegelmann cannot anticipate the claimed invention.
This argument is not persuasive. In light of the amendments to claim 1, the previous rejections based on Wiegelmann have been modified to address the new combination of claimed limitations. In particular, the area including the four elevations (8.1) shown in Fig. 4 is taken to correspond to a single raised portion, such that the steps (8.23) positioned in the inner portion of the raised portion correspond to the claimed linear portions, and the indentations (8.2) located adjacent to the outer (leftmost and rightmost) elevations can be taken to correspond to the claimed edge portions in which steps (8.23) are not positioned. Under this interpretation, Wiegelmann satisfies all of the structural features of the claimed invention, thus anticipating the claim.
It is further noted that claim 1 is currently also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) for the new limitation specifying that “the linear portions are positioned in the inner portions of each of the raised portions and not on the edge portions of the raised portions” failing to comply with the written description requirement. As explained in the rejection above, the specification and drawings do not adequately disclose the configuration in which the linear portions are not positioned on the edge portions of the raised portions. In fact, the embodiment shown in Fig. 10, cited by the Applicant in the remarks, appears to illustrate a configuration in which linear portions are positioned on the edge portions of the raised portions. The Applicant’s remarks do not clearly identify where in the instant disclosure support for this feature can be found or how exactly this feature differentiates over the structure disclosed in the prior art.
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 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/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1785
