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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-4, in the reply filed on 7/28/2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 5-14 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 7/28/2025.
Claim Objections
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities: it contains two sentences. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 1-4 recite the limitation "the stated" which renders the claims indefinite. It is not clear what is meant by “the stated”. Additionally, there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the UV lacquer" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the printed pattern" in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the UV bottom lacquer layer" in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the transparent UV wear resistant adhesive bottom paint" in lines 8-9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the transparent UV wear resistant paint" in lines 10-11. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the UV paint" in line 15. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the textures" in line 14. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the board made of basic material" in line 17. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the glossiness of surface" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
The term “kind” in claim 4 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “kind” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is not clear what “kind” is intended to convey.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li (CN109653465A) in view of Chen (EP3659815A1).
Regarding claims 1 and 4, Li discloses a digital print board (Fig. 1) comprising, from top to bottom, a surface lacquer layer (layer 7), texture layer (layer 6), a second wear layer (layer 5), first wear layer (layer 5), pattern layer (layer 4), bottom lacquer layer (layer 2 or layer 3), base layer (substrate 1), wherein the bottom lacquer layer (layer 2 or layer 3) is formed of light curing UV lacquer (UV primer or UV paint; claim 1), the pattern layer (layer 4) is a printed pattern layer including ink (claim 1) formed on the bottom lacquer layer (layer 2 or layer 3), the first wear layer (first layer of layer 5; UV paint) is coated on the pattern layer (claim 1); the second wear layer (second and/or third layer of layer 5; UV paint) is coated on the first wear layer (claims 1-4), the texture layer (layer 6) is printed on the second wear layer (layer 5) to form stereoscopic texture layer (claim 1; abstract); the surface lacquer layer (layer 7) is a UV paint coated on the texture layer (claim 1); and the base layer is a plastic board base (PVC; claim 1).
Furthermore, claim 1 defines the product by how the product was made. The limitations “formed on light curing”, “being roll coated or sprayed on the base layer", “made by colorful UV oil ink printer”, “made through semi-curing the transparent UV wear resistant adhesive bottom paint which is roll coated on pattern layer by UV light”, “made through multiple times of roll coating”, “made through printing texture oil ink on the second wear layer by digital printer”, “then remove redundant cured texture oil ink with brush machine”, “made through light curing” and “roll coated” are deemed process limitations. Thus, claim 1 is a product-by-process claim. For purposes of examination, product-by-process claims are not limited to the manipulation of the recited steps, only the structure implied by the steps. See MPEP 2113. In the present case, the recited steps imply forming a digital print board including a bottom lacquer layer, a printed pattern layer formed on the bottom lacquer layer, a first wear layer formed on the pattern layer, a second wear layer formed on the first wear layer, a texture layer printed on the second wear layer and a surface lacquer layer coated on the texture layer. As shown above, Li suggests such a product. The method of forming the product is not germane to the issue of patentability of the product itself. MPEP 2113.
Li fails to teach using oil-based inks in forming the pattern layer and texture layer.
Chen teaches that it is well known in the inkjet printing art to use oil-based inks in order to provide rich colors (paragraph [0021]).
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 ink used in Li to be oil-based ink as suggested by Chen in order to form a decorative board exhibiting rich color, if so desired.
Regarding claim 2, Li teaches the second wear layer being coated multiple times on the first wear layer (claims 1-4; UV paint layers 5). The limitations “made through multiple times roll coating”, “shall be kept moist and uncured”, and “the roll coating times, and weight of wear resistant paint shall be determined by wear resistant level” in claim 2 are deemed process limitations. Thus, claim 2 is a product-by-process claim. For purposes of examination, product-by-process claims are not limited to the manipulation of the recited steps, only the structure implied by the steps. See MPEP 2113. In the present case, the recited steps imply forming a second wear layer on the first wear layer. As shown above, Li suggests such a product. The method of forming the product is not germane to the issue of patentability of the product itself. MPEP 2113.
Regarding claim 3, Li discloses the surface lacquer layer (UV finish layer 7) protecting the texture layer (layer 6) and providing a gloss finish (Fig. 1; claims 1-4).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CATHERINE A SIMONE whose telephone number is (571)272-1501. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-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, Frank Vineis can be reached at 571-270-1547. 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.
CATHERINE A. SIMONE
Examiner
Art Unit 1781
/Catherine A. Simone/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1781