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
The text of those section of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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 55 and 62-63 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Braun et al. (EP 3 231 597 A1, “Braun”) and the evidence provided by Green View (What is a WPC Wall Panel?). The disclosure of Braun is based off a machine translation of the reference included with this action.
With respect to claim 55, Braun discloses a wood-based floor panel comprising at least one carrier board (i.e., a substrate) and at least one decorative paper layer impregnated with at least one composition of at least one formaldehyde resin including melamine-formaldehyde and at least one polymer including polyurethane ([0014], [0016], [0019]), i.e., there are two paper layers each impregnated with formaldehyde resin and polyurethane, where one layer corresponds to the claimed decorative paper and one layer corresponds to the claimed polyurethane bonding layer.
In light of the overlap between the claimed panel and that taught by Braun, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a panel that is both taught by Braun and is encompassed within the scope of the present claims, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
With respect to claim 62, Braun discloses the carrier board (i.e., substrate) includes a wood panel composition ([0021]) which comprises wood fibers glued together by a thermoplastic as evidenced by Green View (Green View, page 1, “WPC wall panels combine wood fibers and thermoplastics”; page 3, “The fibers are mixed with thermoplastic materials”).
With respect to claim 63, Braun discloses the top surface of the panel has an embossed structure ([0074]) (i.e., a relief structure that is pressed into the decorative surface).
Claims 59-61 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Braun et al. (EP 3 231 597 A1, “Braun”) and the evidence provided by Green View (What is a WPC Wall Panel?) as applied to claim 55 above, and further in view of Gualandi et al. (EP 1 512 705 A1, “Gualandi”). The disclosure of Braun is based off a machine translation of the reference included with this action.
With respect to claims 59-61, while Braun discloses the use of a polyurethane impregnating a paper layer as set forth above, Braun does not disclose wherein the polyurethane is anionically stabilized, nor wherein the polyurethane is self-crosslinking, nor wherein the polyurethane is at least partly carboxyl-stabilized.
Gualandi teaches an anionic polyurethane polymer having carboxylic groups (i.e., is anionically stabilized and at least partly carboxyl-stabilized), where the polyurethane has hydrolysis stability and is used in adhesives (Abstract, [0001]). While there may be no explicit disclosure from Gualandi regarding the polyurethane being self-crosslinking, given that Gualandi teaches a polyurethane identical to the presently claimed polyurethane, it is clear the polyurethane of Gualandi would necessarily inherently be self-crosslinking, absent evidence to the contrary.
Braun and Gualandi are analogous inventions in the field of articles containing polyurethane layers.
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 polyurethane of Braun to be the anionic polyurethane polymer having carboxylic groups taught by Gualandi in order to provide an adhesive having hydrolysis stability (Gualandi, [0001]).
Claims 64 and 68-69 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Braun et al. (EP 231 597 A1, “Braun”) in view of Kwon et al. (KR 10-2008-0049433 A, “Kwon”) and the evidence provided by Green View (What is a WPC Wall Panel?). The disclosure of Braun is based off a machine translation of the reference included with this action. The disclosure of Kwon is based off a machine translation of the reference included with the action mailed 22 April 2026.
With respect to claims 64 and 69, Braun discloses a wood-based floor panel comprising at least one carrier board (i.e., a substrate) and at least one decorative paper layer impregnated with at least one composition of at least one formaldehyde resin including melamine-formaldehyde and at least one polymer including polyurethane ([0014], [0016], [0019]), i.e., there are two paper layers each impregnated with formaldehyde resin and polyurethane, where one layer corresponds to the claimed decorative paper and one layer corresponds to the claimed polyurethane bonding layer. Braun discloses the top surface of the panel has an embossed structure ([0074]) (i.e., a relief structure that is pressed into the decorative surface). The top layer includes a lacquer layer ([0023]).
However, Braun does not disclose wherein the lacquer layer is selected from the list of an acrylate lacquer layer, a polyurethane acrylate lacquer layer, a polyurethane lacquer layer, or a thermosetting polyester lacquer layer.
Kwon teaches a flooring material (i.e., panel) (page 7, last paragraph, “The present invention relates to a flooring material…”) having a protective layer 12 made from a synthetic resin including polyurethane (PU) to protect the printed layer (page 12, “a protective layer (12) made of synthetic resin raw material to protect the printed pattern of the printing layer…”; page 13, “The protective layer (12) is… composed of one or more synthetic resins selected from… PU”), corresponding to the claimed lacquer layer.
Braun and Kwon are analogous inventions in the field of floor panels having decorative layers that included printed layers.
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 lacquer layer of Braun to be a polyurethane lacquer layer as taught by Kwon in order to protect the printed layer (Kwon, page 12, “a protective layer (12) made of synthetic resin raw material to protect the printed pattern of the printing layer…”; page 13, “The protective layer (12) is… composed of one or more synthetic resins selected from… PU”).
With respect to claim 68, Braun discloses the carrier board (i.e., substrate) includes a wood panel composition ([0021]) which comprises wood fibers glued together by a thermoplastic as evidenced by Green View (Green View, page 1, “WPC wall panels combine wood fibers and thermoplastics”; page 3, “The fibers are mixed with thermoplastic materials”).
Claims 65-67 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Braun et al. (EP 231 597 A1, “Braun”) in view of Kwon et al. (KR 10-2008-0049433 A, “Kwon”) and the evidence provided by Green View (What is a WPC Wall Panel?) as applied to claim 64 above, and further in view of Gualandi et al. (EP 1 512 705 A1, “Gualandi”). The disclosure of Braun is based off a machine translation of the reference included with this action. The disclosure of Kwon is based off a machine translation of the reference included with the action mailed 22 April 2026.
With respect to claims 65-67, while Braun discloses the use of a polyurethane impregnating a paper layer as set forth above, Braun does not disclose wherein the polyurethane is anionically stabilized, nor wherein the polyurethane is self-crosslinking, nor wherein the polyurethane is at least partly carboxyl-stabilized.
Gualandi teaches an anionic polyurethane polymer having carboxylic groups (i.e., is anionically stabilized and at least partly carboxyl-stabilized), where the polyurethane has hydrolysis stability and is used in adhesives (Abstract, [0001]). While there may be no explicit disclosure from Gualandi regarding the polyurethane being self-crosslinking, given that Gualandi teaches a polyurethane identical to the presently claimed polyurethane, it is clear the polyurethane of Gualandi would necessarily inherently be self-crosslinking, absent evidence to the contrary.
Braun and Gualandi are analogous inventions in the field of articles containing polyurethane layers.
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 polyurethane of Braun in view of Kwon to be the anionic polyurethane polymer having carboxylic groups taught by Gualandi in order to provide an adhesive having hydrolysis stability (Gualandi, [0001]).
Claim 70 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Braun et al. (EP 231 597 A1, “Braun”) in view of Kwon et al. (KR 10-2008-0049433 A, “Kwon”) and the evidence provided by Green View (What is a WPC Wall Panel?) as applied to claim 64 above, and further in view of Shen et al. (CN 108528125 A, “Shen”). The disclosure of Braun is based off a machine translation of the reference included with this action. The disclosures of Kwon and Shen are based off machine translations of the references included with the action mailed 22 April 2026.
With respect to claim 70, while Braun in view of Kwon discloses the use of a melamine formaldehyde resin (Braun, [0014], [0016], [0019]), Braun in view of Kwon does not disclose wherein the melamine formaldehyde resin comprises at least 25% by weight of a modifier with respect to a total amount of melamine formaldehyde resin.
Shen teaches a paper impregnated with modified melamine formaldehyde ([0010]). The toughener or modifier is present in an amount of 2-45% ([0018]). The toughener increases the toughness of melamine formaldehyde, which are known to be prone to chipping and cracking ([0004]).
Braun in view of Kwon and Shen are analogous inventions in the field of paper impregnated with melamine formaldehyde resins.
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 melamine formaldehyde resin of Braun in view of Kwon to contain 2-45% of a toughening modifier, including values presently claimed, as taught by Shen in order to provide a melamine formaldehyde with increased toughness and is less prone to chipping and cracking (Shen, [0004]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 56-58 and 71-72 are 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.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for indicating allowable subject matter. Claims 56-58 and 71-72 are allowable over the “closest” prior art Braun et al. (EP 231 597 A1, “Braun”), Gualandi et al. (EP 1 512 705 A1, “Gualandi”), Kwon et al. (KR 10-2008-0049433 A, “Kwon”), Shen et al. (CN 108528125 A, “Shen”) and the evidence provided by Green View (What is a WPC Wall Panel?). The disclosure of Braun is based off a machine translation of the reference included with this action. The disclosures of Kwon and Shen are based off machine translations of the references included with the action mailed 22 April 2026.
Braun discloses a wood-based floor panel comprising at least one carrier board (i.e., a substrate) and at least one decorative paper layer impregnated with at least one composition of at least one formaldehyde resin including melamine-formaldehyde and at least one polymer including polyurethane ([0014], [0016], [0019]), i.e., there are two paper layers each impregnated with formaldehyde resin and polyurethane, where one layer corresponds to the claimed decorative paper and one layer corresponds to the claimed polyurethane bonding layer.
However, Braun does not disclose wherein the polyurethane contains 7-15 g/m2 of dry weight polyurethane, nor wherein the substrate contains polyvinyl butyral as a binder and a filler or wood-based filler wherein the substrate also comprises a layer of medium density fiberboard (MDF) or high density fiberboard (HDF), nor wherein the substrate comprises a vinyl panel comprising mineral fillers or comprising wood-based fillers.
Gualandi disclose an anionic polyurethane polymer having carboxylic groups (i.e., is anionically stabilized and at least partly carboxyl-stabilized), where the polyurethane has hydrolysis stability and is used in adhesives (Abstract, [0001]). While there may be no explicit disclosure from Gualandi regarding the polyurethane being self-crosslinking, given that Gualandi teaches a polyurethane identical to the presently claimed polyurethane, it is clear the polyurethane of Gualandi would necessarily inherently be self-crosslinking, absent evidence to the contrary.
However, Gualandi does not disclose wherein the polyurethane contains 7-15 g/m2 of dry weight polyurethane, nor wherein the substrate also contains polyvinyl butyral as a binder and a filler or wood-based filler wherein the substrate comprises a layer of medium density fiberboard (MDF) or high density fiberboard (HDF), nor wherein the substrate comprises a vinyl panel comprising mineral fillers or comprising wood-based fillers.
Kwon discloses a flooring material (i.e., panel) (page 7, last paragraph, “The present invention relates to a flooring material…”) having a protective layer 12 made from a synthetic resin including polyurethane (PU) to protect the printed layer (page 12, “a protective layer (12) made of synthetic resin raw material to protect the printed pattern of the printing layer…”; page 13, “The protective layer (12) is… composed of one or more synthetic resins selected from… PU”), corresponding to the claimed lacquer layer.
However, Kwon does not disclose wherein the polyurethane contains 7-15 g/m2 of dry weight polyurethane, nor wherein the substrate contains polyvinyl butyral as a binder and a filler or wood-based filler wherein the substrate also comprises a layer of medium density fiberboard (MDF) or high density fiberboard (HDF), nor wherein the substrate comprises a vinyl panel comprising mineral fillers or comprising wood-based fillers.
Shen discloses a paper impregnated with modified melamine formaldehyde ([0010]). The toughener or modifier is present in an amount of 2-45% ([0018]). The toughener increases the toughness of melamine formaldehyde, which are known to be prone to chipping and cracking ([0004]).
However, Shen does not disclose wherein the polyurethane contains 7-15 g/m2 of dry weight polyurethane, nor wherein the substrate contains polyvinyl butyral as a binder and a filler or wood-based filler wherein the substrate also comprises a layer of medium density fiberboard (MDF) or high density fiberboard (HDF), nor wherein the substrate comprises a vinyl panel comprising mineral fillers or comprising wood-based fillers.
Thus, none of the references, either alone or in combination, disclose the inventions of claims 56-58 and 71-72, and therefore claims 56-58 and 71-72 contain allowable subject matter.
Response to Arguments
Due to the amendments to claims 57 and 64, the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections of claims 57-58 and 64-70 are withdrawn.
Due to the amendments to claims 55 and 64: the 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) rejections of claims 55, 57-58, 62-64, and 68-69 over Clement et al. (WO 2021/009584 A1, “Clement ‘584”); the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of claim 56 over Clement ‘584; the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections of claims 59-61 and 65-67 over Clement ‘584 in view of Gualandi et al. (EP 1 512 705 A1, “Gualandi”); and the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of claim 70 over Clement ‘584 in view of Shen et al. (CN 108528125 A, “Shen”) are withdrawn. This is because none of Clement ‘584, Gualandi, or Shen disclose the polyurethane bonding layer comprises a paper layer impregnated with polyurethane. However, upon updating the searches, a new reference was found and therefore the claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as set forth above.
Due to the filing of a common ownership statement in the remarks filed 22 July 2026, which establishes that, no later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed in Clement et al. (US 2022/0161539 A1, “Clement ‘539”) and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person, the 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) rejection of claim 55 over Clement ‘539 is withdrawn.
Due to the amendment to claims 55 and 64: the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections of claims 55-56, 63-64, and 69 over Kwon et al. (KR 10-2008-0049433 A, “Kwon”) in view of Pankoke et al. (DE 10 2019 203 755 A1, “Pankoke”); the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections of claims 59-61 and 65-67 over Kwon in view of Pankoke and Gualandi et al. (EP 1 512 705 A1, “Gualandi”); and the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of claim 70 over Kwon in view of Pankoke and Shen et al. (CN 108528125 A, “Shen”) are withdrawn. This is because none of Kwon, Pankoke, Gualandi, or Shen disclose the polyurethane bonding layer comprises a paper layer impregnated with polyurethane. However, upon updating the searches, a new reference was found and therefore the claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as set forth above.
Due to the amendment to claim 55: the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections of claims 55 and 58 over Steinmann et al. (EP 3 587 108 A1, “Steinmann”); and the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections of claims 59-61 over Steinmann in view of Gualandi et al. (EP 1 512 705 A1, “Gualandi”) are withdrawn. This is because none of Steinmann or Gualandi disclose the polyurethane bonding layer comprises a paper layer impregnated with polyurethane. However, upon updating the searches, a new reference was found and therefore the claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as set forth above.
Applicant's arguments filed 22 July 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the use of Gualandi, Kwon, and Shen as references, Applicant argues the references do not disclose a polyurethane bonding layer comprising a paper layer impregnated with a polyurethane.
In response to Applicant’s arguments, the examiner agrees those references does not meet this limitation. However, those references are not being used to meet this limitation. Rather, as set forth above, Braun is being used to meet this limitation. Braun discloses a wood-based floor panel comprising at least one carrier board (i.e., a substrate) and at least one decorative paper layer impregnated with at least one composition of at least one formaldehyde resin including melamine-formaldehyde and at least one polymer including polyurethane ([0014], [0016], [0019]), i.e., there are two paper layers each impregnated with formaldehyde resin and polyurethane, where one layer corresponds to the claimed decorative paper and one layer corresponds to the claimed polyurethane bonding layer.
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 Steven A Rice whose telephone number is (571)272-4450. The examiner can normally be reached Monday/Wednesday 07:30-12:30 and 20:30-22:30; Tuesday/Thursday/Friday 07:30-16:30 Eastern.
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, Callie E Shosho can be reached at (571) 272-1123. 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.
/STEVEN A RICE/Examiner, Art Unit 1787
/CALLIE E SHOSHO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1787
