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
Claims 1 & 12 have been amended and examined as such.
Claims 3 & 11 have been cancelled as requested by Applicant.
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 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HAGSPIEL et al. (DE 2020-0401871 U – Translation FPD #1) in view of PERVAN et al. (US 2014/0017452 A1).
As related to independent claim 1, HAGSPIEL et al. teaches a method for coating a surface of a workpiece, wherein the surface of the workpiece is a surface of a strip-shaped [i.e. floor panels] coating material (HAGSPIEL et al. – Paragraphs 2-4, 19-20, 48-50, & 55 and Figures 6a & 6b, Reference #2, shown below), the method comprising the steps of: applying a first layer, the first layer having a first pattern; and applying a second layer to the first layer, the second layer having a second pattern (HAGSPIEL et al. – Paragraphs 93-95 and Figures 6A-6B, shown below). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to understand the use of different coatings with spatially varying distribution would clearly represent at least a first pattern and a second pattern. Additionally, PERVAN et al. teaches a method for coating a surface of a strip-shaped workpiece [i.e. floor panel] (PERVAN et al. – Page 1, Paragraphs 8-14) and specifically teaches multiple layers wherein a defined pattern is applied in layers to the surface to be coated by applying the first layer and the second layer (PERVAN et al. – Page 7, Paragraphs 133-135 and Figure 3a, Reference #P1 & #P2 and Figure 4a, Reference #P, both shown below). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the method for coating of HAGSPIEL et al. with the specific defined pattern applied in layers as taught by PERVAN et al. in an effort to provide a thicker wear resistant surface with advanced decorative effects all ad a reduced production cost (Page 1, Paragraph 18 – Page 2, Paragraph 22).
PNG
media_image1.png
434
692
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
174
352
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
158
356
media_image3.png
Greyscale
As related to dependent claim 2, the combination of HAGSPIEL et al. and PERVAN et al. remains as applied above and continues to teach the first pattern or the second pattern is formed by gaps in the layer [i.e. pores, recesses, or depression] (HAGSPIEL et al. – Paragraphs 21, 93, & 95).
As related to dependent claim 4, the combination of HAGSPIEL et al. and PERVAN et al. remains as applied above and continues to teach at least one of the applying the first layer or the applying the second layer is carried out with a UV ink or a UV varnish, or a solvent-based or water-based ink or varnish (HASPIEL et al. – Paragraphs 31, 37, & 53 and PERVAN et al. – Page 2, Paragraphs 24-27).
As related to dependent claim 5, the combination of HAGSPIEL et al. and PERVAN et al. remains as applied above and above and continues to teach at least one of the applying the first layer or the second layer is carried out in one pass (HASPIEL et al. – Paragraphs 59 & 83 and Figure 5, shown below and PERVAN et al. – Figure 1a, shown below).
PNG
media_image4.png
238
658
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
132
386
media_image5.png
Greyscale
As related to dependent claim 6, the combination of HAGSPIEL et al. and PERVAN et al. remains as applied above and above and continues to teach after application of the first layer, an action is performed on the first layer to at least partially cure or dry the first layer (HASPIEL et al. – Paragraphs 27-28, 34, & 53 and Figure 5, shown above and PERVAN et al. – Page 2, Paragraph 25 and Figure 1a, Reference #23ain).
As related to dependent claim 7, the combination of HAGSPIEL et al. and PERVAN et al. remains as applied above and above and continues to teach at least one of the applying the first layer or the applying the second layer is carried out with an inkjet print head (HASPIEL et al. – Paragraphs 39-40 & 83 and Figure 5, shown above and PERVAN et al. – Figures 3b & 3c, shown below).
PNG
media_image6.png
398
398
media_image6.png
Greyscale
As related to dependent claim 8, the combination of HAGSPIEL et al. and PERVAN et al. remains as applied above and above and continues to teach the method further comprising setting parameters for application of the first and second layers, wherein the parameters comprise at least one of [i.e. inherent characteristics of inkjet printer control]: droplet spacing, droplet size, type of voltage pulse at the print head, opening time of a nozzle, opening cross section of a nozzle, pressure for ejecting a material for forming the first and/or second layer, or selection of a material for forming the first or second layer (HASPIEL et al. – Paragraphs 27, 39-43, & 83 and PERVAN et al. – Page 4, Paragraphs 60-63).
As related to dependent claim 9, the combination of HAGSPIEL et al. and PERVAN et al. remains as applied above and above and continues to teach a layer material of the first layer and a layer material of the second layer differ from each other (HAGSPIEL et al. – Paragraphs 93-95 and Figures 6A-6B, shown above and PERVAN et al. – Figures 3a & 4a, shown above).
As related to further dependent claim 12, the combination of HAGSPIEL et al. and PERVAN et al. remains as applied above and above and continues to teach the action comprises at least partially curing or drying the first layer an air dryer, an IR lamp, or a UV lamp (HAGSPIEL et al. – Paragraphs 27-28 and PERVAN et al. – Page 6, Paragraph 121 and Figures 1a, 3b, & 3c, Reference #23x, shown above).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HAGSPIEL et al. (DE 2020-0401871 U – Translation FPD #1).
HAGSPIEL et al. teaches a device for coating a surface of a workpiece, the device comprising: a first application device for applying a first layer; a second application device for applying a second layer (HAGESPIEL – Figure 6a & 6b, Reference #24, shown above) to the first layer; and a control device configured to control the first application device to form the first layer with a first pattern and to control the second application device to form the second layer with a second pattern (HAGSPIEL et al. – Paragraphs 39-43). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to understand the use of different coatings with spatially varying distribution would clearly represent at least a first pattern and a second pattern.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant's arguments filed 17 October 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argued “Hagspiel does not disclose the first coating has any specific pattern.” Examiner respectfully disagrees, HAGSPIEL et al. teaches a decorative print layer and any desired structure by selecting an appropriately colored sealing layer consisting of at least a first coating… and enhance the surface effects of the structuring and the first coating consists of at least two separately applied layers (HAGSPIEL et al. – Paragraphs 17, 52, & 78). In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., a specific pattern) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Applicant argued that “there is no teaching that this varying distributions forms a ‘defined pattern’ for gloss adjustment.” Examiner respectfully disagrees and requests Applicant review the rejection put forth previously and reiterated above and view figures 6-8 of HAGSPIEL. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., defined pattern for floss adjustment) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Applicant argued that “Hagspiel does not disclose coating ‘a surface of a strip-shaped coating material.” Examiner respectfully disagrees. As indicated previously, HAGSPIEL deals with floor panels which are inherently strip-shaped. Examiner respectfully requests Applicant view figures 6-8 of HAGSPIEL for further depiction of a strip-shaped floor panel.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. PANKOKE (US 2020/0023662 A1) teaches a method and apparatus for producing a decorative surface, particularly a floor panel with multiple layers.
Examiner's Note: Examiner has cited particular Figures & Reference Numbers, Columns, Paragraphs and Line Numbers in the references as applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner.
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 JOHN P ZIMMERMANN whose telephone number is (571)270-3049. The Examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 0700-1730 EST.
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, Stephen Meier can be reached at (571) 272-2149. 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.
/John P Zimmermann/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2853