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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-12, 21 and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Laurent Meersseman (EP 3115195 A1) (hereinafter Meersseman) and further in view of Pervan (US Pub. No.: 2006/0179773 A1) (hereinafter Pervan).
Regarding claim 1, Meersseman discloses method to manufacture a bevel (Fig. 7, RC 38) at least partly along at least one edge of a building panel (Fig. 7, RC 1), wherein said building panel comprises a polymer-based material (Abstract; Thermoplastic material), the method comprising: creating an indentation in an edge portion of the at least one edge of the building panel (Fig. 8, ¶0082), wherein the indentation is located at a distance from a surface of the building panel in which surface the bevel is to be formed, in a direction substantially perpendicular to the surface of the building panel (Fig. 8, RC 44; ¶0082)), applying pressure to the surface for forming a bevel of the building panel (Fig. 7-9; RC 42, ¶0081).
Meersseman discloses heating the edge portion when pressure is applied (Fig. 7; ¶0081). Mersseman is silent about heating an area between the indentation and the surface of the building panel in which the bevel is to be formed.
Pervan also discloses a method of manufacturing bevel at least partly along one edge of a building panel. The method discloses heating the edge groove which heats an area between the indentation and the surface of the building panel in which the bevel is to be formed (Fig. 4b; ¶0043). The edge portion is then compressed with a compression tool to desired profile. During the compression, the fibers in the core will be permanently compressed, the fiber orientations will in most cases change and the density in the edge portion (20) will increase (¶0043; Fig. 4a -4c). The benefit of doing so would have been to create bevel edge via heat and pressure.
Given the wealth of knowledge, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to locally heat the building panel edge as taught Pervan with the method of manufacturing of bevel at least partly along edge of building panel as taught by Meersseman. The benefit of doing so would have been to create bevel edge via heat and pressure.
Regarding claim 2, Meersseman discloses wherein the polymer-based material of the building panel is a thermoplastic material (Abstract).
Regarding claim 3, Meerssman discloses wherein the building panel comprises an amount of at least 10 wt% of the thermoplastic material (Abstract; 100% thermoplastic material includes at least 10 wt% of the thermoplastic material).
Regarding claim 4, Meerssman discloses the building panel comprises a substrate (6) comprising a polymer-based material, and a surface layer, wherein the surface layer comprises a decorative layer (7) (Abstract; Fig. 7; ¶0043, ¶0058).
Regarding claim 5, Meerssman discloses the decorative layer is a printed polymer-based sheet (¶0043, ¶0058).
Regarding claim 6, Meerssman discloses the surface layer further comprises a wear layer (¶0058).
Regarding claim 7, Meerssman discloses wherein the polymer-based material of the substrate is a thermoplastic material (Abstract).
Regarding claim 8, Meerssman discloses the substrate comprises an amount of at least 10 wt% of the thermoplastic material (Abstract; 100% thermoplastic material includes at least 10 wt% of the thermoplastic material).
Regarding claim 9, Meerssman disclose wherein the indentation is located at least partly in the substrate (Fig. 8).
Regarding claim 10, Meerssman discloses wherein the indentation is located at least partly in the surface layer (11) (Fig. 8 -notice very edge of layer 11 near indentation 44).
Regarding claim 11, Meerssman discloses wherein the indentation (44) extends along the entire length of the at least one edge of the building panel (Fig. 8).
Regarding claim 12, Meerssman discloses wherein the indentation extends into the edge portion of the at least one edge in a direction substantially parallel to the surface of the building panel (Fig. 8).
Regarding claim 21, Meerssman discloses the indentation extends across a boundary between the substrate and the surface layer (Fig. 8). The indentation (44) in figure 8 is a side profile. The indentation (44) would naturally extend across a boundary between the substrate (44) and the surface layer (7).
Regarding claim 22, Meerssman discloses wherein the indentation includes an opening at the edge portion, wherein a height of the opening at the edge portion, prior to forming the bevel, is about equal to a total height of the bevel after forming the bevel (Fig. 8 -9). Notice the height of indentation (44) is about equal to height of the bevel (38). The indentation is entirely sealed/covered by top surface is pushed downward (Fig. 9).
Claim(s) 13 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meerssman and Pervan as applied to claims 1-12 above, and further in view of Pervan et al. (US Pub. No.: 2011/0250404 A1) (hereinafter ‘404).
Regarding claims 13 and 14, the limitations of claim 1 are taught by the combined teaching of Meerssman and Pervan as cited above. They are both silent about limitations of claims 13 and 14.
Pervan ‘404 also discloses a method of manufacturing a building panel. The method discloses creating very glossy surfaces in floor and wall panels. A floor panel with a fibre based core can for example be produced in a two step process where a first layer comprising fibres, binders and preferably a colour substance and/or a print is produced by curing the surface layer with heat and pressure. A second powder layer comprising plastic particles in powder form is applied in a second production step on the cured fibre layer. The plastic powder comprises preferably aluminium oxide particles. A digital print is preferably injected into the plastic powder which is thereafter heated such that the plastic particles melt. The semi liquid plastic layer is cooled with a cooling device that can be a metal plate or cylinder. The cooling device can have an embossed or completely glossy surface (¶0083). Thus, Pervan ‘404 discloses making building panel with glossy surface.
Given the wealth of knowledge it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to utilize cooling device as taught by Pervan ‘404 within the method of manufacturing a bevel building panel as taught by the combined teaching of Meerssman and Pervan. The benefit of doing so would have been to make a building panel with glossy surface.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 23 is 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/20/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Argument 1: Nothing in Meersseman suggests that the indentation-based second embodiment is intended to be modified to include the heating and compressive densification of the first embodiment, nor that the heat-and-compression first embodiment would benefit from the addition of an indentation.
Response 1: The examiner respectfully disagrees. The combined teaching of Meersseman and Pervan discloses every limitation of claim 1. Meersseman discloses various embodiments. A person of ordinary skill can easily combine multiple embodiment to obtain desired results. Meersseman explicitly states “Herein, a pressing element 43, in this case a rolling element 43, is applied, which possibly can be heated. It is also possible to heat up the transparent thermoplastic layer 10 prior to pressing down, for example, by means of an infrared beam device, wherein then possibly use can be made of a press element 43 which is only slightly heated, for example, to maximum 40°C or 35°C, with an unheated one, thus, on room temperature, or with one which is cooled down below room temperature, for example, maximum to 15°C.” (¶0081). Thus, Meersseman alone teaches creating indentation, heating and applying pressure. Pervan is applied to reinforce that heating and pressing steps can be performed in sequence as opposed to simultaneously.
Argument 2: Meersseman does not show that the indentation is located at least partly in the surface layer.
Response 2: The surface layer is open to interpretation. The indentation 44 of Meersseman is considered as indentation is located at least partly in the surface layer (near the entry point) which allows the layer 7 to curve.
Argument 3: Meersseman in no way discloses the subject matter of Claim 11. In fact, this figure does not show the entire length of the alleged at least one edge of the building panel.
Response 3: The examiner respectfully disagrees. Fig. 8 show the side profile where the indentation 44 would naturally extend the entire length of the building panel as similar to applicants own Figures.
Argument 4: The Office has not established that Pevan II in any way would have led an ordinarily skilled artisan to modify the proposed Meersseman/Pervan combination to include "cooling the bevel by means of a cooling device, at least partly in the area between the indentation and the surface of the building panel" (Claim 13) and "wherein cooling is applied during applying pressure to the surface for forming a bevel of the building panel" (Claim 14).
Response 4: The examiner respectfully disagrees. The examiner has provided adequate reasoning in claim rejection above.
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.
/VISHAL I PATEL/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1746