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 .
Withdrawn Rejections
The 35 U.S.C. 112(d) rejection of claim 18 of record in the previous Office Action mailed 1/16/2026 has been withdrawn due to Applicant's amendment filed on 4/15/2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 27 and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claims contain subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
The new limitations “wherein the second paper sheet is not exposed in the bevel” and “wherein the second adhesive is not exposed in the bevel” are deemed new matter. The Drawings and the Specification, as originally filed, do not provide support for these new limitations.
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, 7-10, 16 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ziegler et al. (US Pub. No. 2019/0210329A1) [hereinafter Ziegler ‘329] in view of Ziegler et al. (US Pub. No. 2015/0197943A1) [hereinafter Ziegler ‘943].
Regarding claim 1, Ziegler ‘329 discloses a building panel (Figs. 2-3; paragraph [0016]), comprising a core (substrate 1; paragraph [0051]), a sublayer (layers 2a and 2b) arranged above the core (1), a wood veneer layer (veneer layer 3; paragraph [0106]) arranged above the sublayer, wherein the wood veneer layer comprises at least one open structure (defects 6), and wherein the sublayer comprises at least two separate paper sheets (layers 2a and 2b), wherein a first paper sheet (layer 2a) of the at least two separate paper sheets, having a first color (paragraph [0049]), and wherein a second paper sheet (layer 2b) of the at least two separate paper sheets, having a second color (paragraph [0049]) and is at least partly exposed in the at least one open structure (6) of the wood veneer layer (Figs. 2-3), and wherein the first color is different from the second color (paragraph [0062] and [0085]).
Ziegler ‘329 fails to teach a bevel arranged at least partly along at least one side portion of the building panel wherein the sublayer is at least partly exposed in the bevel.
Ziegler ‘943 teaches that it is well known in the veneer element art to have a bevel provided on an edge of a building panel that extends into the sublayer such that the sublayer is visible from the top surface of the panel for the purpose of providing a desired decorative appearance (paragraph [0154]).
Therefore, 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 panel in Ziegler ‘329 to include a bevel arranged at least partly along at least one side portion of the building panel such that the sublayer is at least partly exposed in the bevel as suggested by Ziegler ’943 in order to provide the building panel with a decorative appearance if so desired.
Regarding claim 7, Ziegler’329 teaches the first paper sheet arranged side by side with the second paper sheet (Figs. 2-3, layers 2a and 2b).
Regarding claim 8, Ziegler ‘329 teaches the first paper sheet (layer 2a) being arranged in at least one rim portion of the building panel and the second paper sheet (layer 2b) being arranged in a centre portion of the building panel (Figs. 2-3).
Regarding claim 9, Ziegler ‘329 discloses wherein the second paper sheet (Fig. 2, layer 2b) is at least partly arranged on top of the first paper sheet (Fig. 2, layer 2a).
Regarding claim 10, Ziegler ‘329 discloses the second paper sheet (Fig. 2, layer 2b) is at least partly arranged on top of the first paper sheet (Fig. 2, layer 2a) in an area of the sublayer below the at least one open structure (6) of the wood veneer layer (Fig. 2, layer 3).
Regarding claim 16, Ziegler ‘329 discloses a building panel (Figs. 2-3; paragraph [0016]), comprising a core (substrate 1; paragraph [0051]), a sublayer (layers 2a and 2b) arranged above the core (1), wherein the sublayer comprises an adhesive (binder; paragraphs [0041-0045], [0063-0065] and [0086]), a wood veneer layer (veneer layer 3; paragraph [0106]) arranged above the sublayer, wherein the wood veneer layer comprises at least one open structure (defects 6), wherein the adhesive (binder) is a first adhesive (layer 2a) having a first color (claims 5 and 19), the sublayer further comprising a second adhesive (layer 2b), the second adhesive (layer 2b) has a second color (claims 8 and 22) and is at least partly exposed in the at least one open structure (6) of the wood veneer layer (Figs. 2-3), and wherein the first color of the first adhesive is different from the second color of the second adhesive (paragraphs [0062] and [0085]; claims 8 and 22).
Ziegler ‘329 fails to teach a bevel arranged at least partly along at least one side portion of the building panel wherein the sublayer is at least partly exposed in the bevel.
Ziegler ‘943 teaches that it is well known in the veneer element art to have a bevel provided on an edge of a building panel that extends into the sublayer such that the sublayer is visible from the top surface of the panel for the purpose of providing a desired decorative appearance (paragraph [0154]).
Therefore, 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 panel in Ziegler ‘329 to include a bevel arranged at least partly along at least one side portion of the building panel such that the sublayer is at least partly exposed in the bevel as suggested by Ziegler ’943 in order to provide the building panel with a decorative appearance if so desired.
Regarding claim 18, Ziegler ‘329 discloses the second adhesive comprising pigment or dye (paragraphs [0084] and [0116]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/15/2026 have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that “Ziegler ‘329 contains no disclosure or suggestion of selectively exposing different layers at different locations of the building panel, no disclosure of a bevel exposing a sublayer at a side portion of the panel, and no teaching of exposing one paper sheet in a bevel while exposing a different, differently colored paper sheet through veneer openings” and “Ziegler ‘943 does not disclose multiple paper sheets having different colors, nor does it disclose or suggest selective exposure of different sheets at different panel regions. The reference does not describe any coordinated color strategy, any intentional differentiation between edge appearance and surface appearance, or any arrangement in which different paper sheets are exposed at different locations for decorative effect”. Applicant further argues “there is no apparent reason from either reference that would lead a person of ordinary skill in the art to redesign the sublayer structure of Ziegler ‘329 such that one paper sheet is intentionally exposed through veneer openings. Instead, it appears that the only way to arrive at the claimed subject matter would be impermissibly to use the claimed invention as an instruction manual or template to piece together the teachings of the prior art”.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). As shown in the 103 rejection above, Ziegler ‘329 teaches a building panel (Figs. 2-3; paragraph [0016]), comprising a core (substrate 1; paragraph [0051]), a sublayer (layers 2a and 2b) arranged above the core (1), a wood veneer layer (veneer layer 3; paragraph [0106]) arranged above the sublayer, wherein the wood veneer layer comprises at least one open structure (defects 6), and wherein the sublayer comprises at least two separate paper sheets (layers 2a and 2b), wherein a first paper sheet (layer 2a) of the at least two separate paper sheets, having a first color (paragraph [0049]), and wherein a second paper sheet (layer 2b) of the at least two separate paper sheets, having a second color (paragraph [0049]) and is at least partly exposed in the at least one open structure (6) of the wood veneer layer (Figs. 2-3), and wherein the first color is different from the second color (paragraph [0062] and [0085]), as recited in independent claim 1. Additionally, Ziegler ‘329 teaches a building panel (Figs. 2-3; paragraph [0016]), comprising a core (substrate 1; paragraph [0051]), a sublayer (layers 2a and 2b) arranged above the core (1), wherein the sublayer comprises an adhesive (binder; paragraphs [0041-0045], [0063-0065] and [0086]), a wood veneer layer (veneer layer 3; paragraph [0106]) arranged above the sublayer, wherein the wood veneer layer comprises at least one open structure (defects 6), wherein the adhesive (binder) is a first adhesive (layer 2a) having a first color (claims 5 and 19), the sublayer further comprising a second adhesive (layer 2b), the second adhesive (layer 2b) has a second color (claims 8 and 22) and is at least partly exposed in the at least one open structure (6) of the wood veneer layer (Figs. 2-3), and wherein the first color of the first adhesive is different from the second color of the second adhesive (paragraphs [0062] and [0085]; claims 8 and 22), as recited in independent claim 16. Ziegler ‘943 was merely cited to suggest that it is well known in the building panel art to have a bevel provided on the side portion of the panel such that the sublayer is visible from the top surface of the panel, hence the sublayer is partly exposed (paragraph [0154]). Ziegler ‘329 and Ziegler ‘943 both teach similar building panels and therefore are analogous art. Thus, 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 building panel of Ziegler ‘329 to have a bevel on its edge portion exposing the sublayer as suggested by Ziegler ‘943 in order to form a building panel with an alternative decorative appearance if so desired.
Accordingly, claims 1, 7-10, 16 and 18 are unpatentable over Ziegler ‘329 in view of Ziegler ‘943.
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 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
Prosecution Insights