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 claims 1-11 in the reply filed on 11/13/2025 is acknowledged.
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, 2, 4-7, 9 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Perrin et al. (US Pub. No.: 2015/0299962 A1) (hereinafter Perrin).
Regarding claim 1, Perrin discloses a method of manufacturing a decorative surface laminate (¶002), comprising: obtaining a sheet of cellulose-based inclusion paper (¶0122, ¶0171); digitally printing a decorative finish onto the print surface of the inclusion paper (¶0085-¶0087), stacking the printed inclusion paper and multiple sheets of backing paper, such that the backing paper resides adjacent the printed inclusion paper on a side opposite the print surface (¶0182); impregnating the printed inclusion paper and backing paper with a thermosetting resin (¶0181-¶0182); and using heat and pressure, combining the impregnated sheets of printed inclusion paper and backing paper to form a flexible high-density laminate panel (¶0179, ¶0136, ¶0146).
Perrin is silent about the inclusion paper comprises a print surface having a porosity greater than 1.25%. However, Perrin discloses decorative paper has porosity of 5 to 50 seconds, ideally 10 to 20 seconds (¶0096). Perrin has emphasized high porosity decorative paper is not desirable; high absorbing decoration paper consumes more ink and print quality is distorted (¶0015-¶0017). Perrin discloses the use of low porosity decorative paper to control ink absorption in order to obtain clear, high-quality printing (¶0017).
Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to use decorative paper with porosity of greater than 1.25 %. The benefit of doing so would have been to allow the print layer to absorb the ink effectively.
Regarding claim 2, Perrin discloses wherein the inclusion paper comprises cellulose fibers and metallic inclusions (¶0056, ¶0171, Table 1).
Regarding claim 4, Perrin discloses comprising applying the laminate panel to a base, the base being selected from a group consisting of solid wood, plywood, medium-density fiberboard (MDF), high- density fiberboard (HDF), and particle board (¶0008, ¶0183, Fig. 3C).
Regarding claim 5, Perrin discloses the stack 28 in Fig. 3 has 4 sheet of kraft paper. Perrin further discloses the use of 10 sheets of kraft paper (¶0198 -10 sheets includes 3-8 sheets of paper).
Regarding claim 6, Perrin discloses the thermosetting resin comprises one of a group consisting of phenol- formaldehyde resin and melamine-formaldehyde resin (¶0138).
Regarding claim 7, Perrin discloses the production of high-pressure laminates, a decorative sheet impregnated with resin is placed on top of a stack of kraft paper impregnated with resin. The stack is then densified by heating, to a temperature of about 110⁰C to 170⁰C, and by pressing, at a pressure of about 5.5 MPa to 11 MPa, for approximately 25 to 60 minutes, so as to obtain a unitary structure (¶0007).
Regarding claims 9 and 10, Perrin discloses decorative paper has Gurley porosity of 5 to 50 seconds, ideally 10 to 20 seconds (¶0096), but fails to specifically disclose wherein the print surface of the inclusion paper has a porosity of between 1.25 % to 6.25 %. However, Perrin has emphasized high porosity decorative paper is not desirable; high absorbing decoration paper consumes more ink and print quality is distorted (¶0015-¶0017). Perrin discloses the use of low porosity decorative paper to control ink absorption in order to obtain clear, high-quality printing (¶0017). Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to use decorative paper with porosity of between 1.25 % and 6.25 %. The benefit of doing so would have been to allow the print layer to absorb the ink effectively.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Perrin as applied to claims 1, 2, 4-7, 9 and 10 above, and further in view of Chan (US Pub. No.: 2017/0036424 A1).
Regarding claim 8, the limitations of claim 1 are taught by Perrin as cited above. Perrin is silent about thickness of and density of laminate panel.
Chen also discloses a method of manufacturing a decorative surface laminate. Chen discloses timber layers with a thickness below 0.7 mm (less than 1.0 mm) or thickness of 0.2 mm to 1 mm ¶0027). Such a thickness may ensure good penetration of the adhesive and resultant raise of the mechanical properties of interest, such as indentation resistance. Chen discloses the manufacturing process generally increases density as compared to the original timber layer by at least 20%- 50% (¶0015). The density of timber layer is generally 0.42 to 0.90 g/cm3 . Thus, the density of final product is at least 1.35 g/cm3. A higher density would improve the mechanical strength of final product.
Thus, given the wealth of knowledge it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to utilize laminate as taught by Chen within the method of manufacturing a decorative surface laminate as taught by Perrin. The benefit of doing so would have been to make higher density laminate panel with good penetration of adhesive.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Perrin as applied to claims 1, 2, 4-7, 9 and 10 above, and further in view of Lenaerts J (EP 3848422 A1).
Regarding claim 11, the limitations of claim 1 are taught by Perrin. Perrin is silent about liquid ink having viscosity less than 15 millipascal-second at 32⁰C and shear rate of 1,000 1/s.
Lenaerts also discloses a method of manufacturing decorative surface. The method discloses using aqueous inkjet inks having a viscosity at a temperature of 32 ⁰C of smaller than 12 mPa*s at a shear rate of 1,000 1/s (Claim 14). The benefit of doing so would have been to manufacture a decorative panel with high printing reliability and productivity by using the pigment aqueous inkjet ink set.
Give the wealth of knowledge, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to utilize liquid ink as taught by Lenerts within the method of manufacturing decorative surface laminate as taught by Perrin. The benefit of doing so would have been to manufacture a decorative panel with high printing reliability and productivity by using the pigment aqueous inkjet ink set.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 3 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VISHAL I PATEL whose telephone number is (571)270-7660. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9-5.
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, Michael Orlando can be reached at (571) 270-5038. 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.
/VISHAL I PATEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1746
Prosecution Insights