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 § 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.
1. Claim 3 is 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.
With regard to Claim 3, there is not antecedent basis for “the first paper overlay.” For purposes of examination, the overlay is presumed to comprise paper.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC §§ 102 and 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
2. Claim 1, 8, 10, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and/or (a)(2) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over US 2022/0402162 to Merrick et al. (“Merrick”).
With regard to Claims 1, 8, 10, and 14, Merrick teaches a method of producing a factory-finished integrated panel comprising treating a plurality of wood strands and flakes with adhesives, chemicals, and/or additives, forming the treated wood material into one or more mat layers, applying thereon a performance overlay comprising a finish coating, and applying heat and pressure to form a board comprising an upper surface featuring the performance overlay (see Abstract; FIG. 3; ¶¶ [0021]-[0023]). Merrick describes eligible performance overlay materials as including, but not limited to, a primed paper with performance additives (see ¶ [0021]). To the extent that additives or primer is not expressly described as residing on a top surface of the paper overlay, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have provided additive or primer on a top surface of the overlay in order to leave them exposed for post-manufacturing objectives such as appearance.
3. Claims 2-4, 6-7, and 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Merrick as applied to Claim 1, and further in view of US 2022/0372749 to Ni et al. (“Ni”).
With regard to Claims 2, 4, 6-7, 11, and 13, Merrick teaches trimming the board (see ¶ [0023]); however the reference does not expressly teach applying a coating to resulting edges. Ni is similarly directed to manufacture of multilayer boards, and teaches coating board edges with a sealant after pressing to prevent water ingress (see Abstract; ¶ [0014]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have coated board edges with a sealant after trimming in the method of Merrick in order to protect them against water as taught by Ni.
With regard to Claims 3 and 12, Merrick is directed to production of boards with smooth finished surfaces (see Abstract). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have matched features, including color, of an edge coating with that of the other board surfaces.
4. Claims 5 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Merrick as applied to Claims 1 and 8, respectively, and further in view of US 3,887,082 to M. Posselt (“Posselt”).
With regard to Claims 5 and 9, Merrick teaches examples of overlay material include, but are not limited to, a primed paper. To the extent that Merrick does not expressly teach a non-primer coating layer, Posselt is similarly directed to production of finished pressed board products, and teaches incorporating non-primer finish layers on overlay materials to provide desired appearances (see Abstract; Col. 1, Lns. 29-37; Col. 2, Lns. 1-5). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have employed a non-primer finish coating on the overlay material in the method of Merrick, as taught by Posselt, in order to obtain a desired appearance of the finished board.
5. Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Merrick.
With regard to Claim 15, Merrick teaches a paper overlay without particular limitation (see ¶ [0021]); however the reference does not expressly teach a resin-impregnated paper overlay. Merrick otherwise teaches an interface layer comprising resin-impregnated paper (see ¶ [0006]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have employed a resin-impregnated paper overlay in order to conserve materials and improve process efficiency.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 27 May 2026 have been fully considered but are deemed moot in view of the new grounds of rejection presented herein in response to the claims as amended. To wit, Merrick teaches and/or suggests provision of an overlay featuring a finish coating (see ¶ [0021]).
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 Michael P Rodriguez whose telephone number is (571)270-3736. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 - 6:00 Eastern M-F.
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 Cleveland can be reached at 571-272-1418. 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.
/Michael P. Rodriguez/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1715
Prosecution Insights