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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 26 June 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed 26 June 2026 has been entered. Claims 1 – 10, 13, 15, and 16 remain pending in the application. Claims 17 – 20 are new claims commensurate in scope with claim 1 and therefore are under consideration.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 – 3, 5, 9, and 15 – 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Baert (WO 2017/133804 A1), as evidenced by Ma (US 2018/0050527 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Baert discloses a panel (“panel”: e.g. p. 1, l. 32, to p. 15, l. 34) comprising
a substrate and a top layer provided onto the substrate (“core layer” and “top layer”, respectively: e.g. p. 2, ll. 1 – 5, 8 – 12, 24 – 28; p. 2, l. 31, to p. p. 9, l. 10; p. 9, ll. 12 – 16, 20 – 31; p. 10, ll. 1 – 13; p. 10, l. 27, to p. 11, l. 2; p. 11, ll. 13 – 19, 22 – 24; p. 12, ll. 1 – 15, 22 – 29; p. 13, l. 4, to p. 14, l. 24; p. 14, ll. 30 – 33; p. 15, ll. 8 – 14, 21 – 28, 33 – 34)
wherein the top layer comprises at least a melamine-based resin (the “top layer” comprises at least one “kraft paper layer” impregnated with an “adhesive”, said “adhesive” being, e.g., “melamine formaldehyde resins”: e.g. p. 7, l. 4, to p. 8, l. 27) and
wherein the top layer comprises a resin impregnated foil disposed between the melamine-based resin and the substrate (another of the at least one “kraft paper layer” impregnated with an “adhesive”: e.g. p. 7, l. 4, to p. 8, l. 27);
wherein the substrate comprises a magnesium oxide board (magnesium oxide is an example of a “mineral material”/“mineral filler” forming the “core layer”: e.g. p. 2, ll. 1 – 3; p. 3, ll. 1 – 14; p. 5, ll. 15 – 25; p. 13, ll. 11 – 12);
wherein the resin impregnated foil directly contacts the magnesium oxide board (“fusion bonding” without an additional “adhesive layer”: e.g. p. 2, ll. 31 – 33; p. 6, l. 25, to p. 7, l. 2; p. 10, l. 27, to p. 11, l. 2; p. 11, ll. 18 – 20; p. 12, ll. 9 – 11, 28 – 29; p. 14, ll. 22 – 24, 30 – 33; p. 15, ll. 13 – 15, 27 – 28); and
wherein the resin impregnated foil directly contacts the melamine-based resin (adjacent ones of the at least one “kraft paper layer”: e.g. p. 7, l. 4, to p. 8, l. 27);
wherein the resin of the resin impregnated foil provides a bond with the magnesium oxide board (“fusion bonding”: e.g. p. 2, ll. 31 – 33; p. 6, l. 25, to p. 7, l. 2; p. 10, ll. 27 – 34).
For clarity, Baert discloses their “top layer” comprises “at least one base layer”, a “decorative layer”, and a “wear layer” stacked on each other, all of which are impregnated with melamine (e.g. p. 8, ll. 6 – 14). Accordingly, a lowest one of the “at least one base layer” corresponds to the resin impregnated foil as this layer is the one having a fusion bond with the “core layer”: e.g. p. 2, ll. 31 – 33; p. 6, l. 25, to p. 7, l. 2). The immediately next layer over this lowest layer provides the claimed melamine-based resin directly contacting the resin impregnated foil.
Additionally, to clarify Baert’s “fusion bonding”, Baert notes “fusion bonding” can result from the contacting surfaces of the “core layer” and the “top layer” having flown to interact with each other under heat and pressure (e.g. p. 10, l. 27, to p. 11, l. 2), thus forming a high-pressure laminate (e.g. p. 7, l. 6, to p. 6, l. 4). Ma clarifies that said flow involves the resin impregnating the paper, including those where melamine is the resin, to integrate a panel (e.g. ¶¶ [0004] – [0007]). Given Baert uses the same materials Ma discusses, Ma confirms that the result of Baert’s process is the resin of the impregnated foil providing a bond with the magnesium oxide board.
Regarding claim 2, in addition to the limitations of claim 1, Baert discloses said resin impregnated foil comprises a resin, e.g. a melamine-based resin (“melamine formaldehyde resins” as an example of the “adhesive”: e.g. p. 7, l. 28, to p. 8, l. 4).
Regarding claim 3, in addition to the limitations of claim 1, Baert discloses said resin impregnated foil comprises a paper sheet or a Kraft paper sheet (e.g. pp. 7, ll. 6 – 22, 28 – 31; p. 8, ll. 6 – 8; p. 8, l. 34, to p. 9, l. 2).
Regarding claim 5, in addition to the limitations of claim 1, Baert discloses the foil of the resin impregnated foil has a starting weight of between 50 and 150 g/sqm (e.g. p. 7, ll. 17 – 18). Baert’s starting weight lies within the claimed range.
Regarding claim 9, in addition to the limitations of claim 1, Baert discloses the top layer comprises a binder (mixtures of “adhesive” can be used, e.g. by adding an additional “adhesive” to the “melamine formaldehyde resins”, in the “kraft paper layers”: e.g. p. 7, l. 28, to p. 8, l. 4).
Regarding claim 15, in addition to the limitations of claim 1, Baert discloses the magnesium oxide board comprises, e.g., natural fibers (e.g. p. 4, ll. 22 – 27).
Regarding claim 16, in addition to the limitations of claim 1, Baert discloses the top layer comprises a water absorbing substance, wherein the water absorbing substance is, e.g., cellulose fibers (e.g. p. 7, ll. 18 – 22; p. 8, l. 34, to p. 9, l. 3; p. 12, ll. 24 – 25; p. 13, ll. 6 – 9; p. 15, ll. 23 – 24).
Regarding claim 17, in addition to the limitations of claim 1, as noted with respect to claim 1, Baert notes “fusion bonding” can result from the contacting surfaces of the “core layer” and the “top layer” having flown to interact with each other under heat and pressure (e.g. p. 10, l. 27, to p. 11, l. 2), thus forming a high-pressure laminate (e.g. p. 7, l. 6, to p. 6, l. 4). Ma clarifies that said flow involves the resin impregnating the paper, including those where melamine is the resin, to integrate a panel (e.g. ¶¶ [0004] – [0007]). Given Baert uses the same materials Ma discusses in each of the “kraft paper layers” forming the “top layer”, Ma confirms that the result of Baert’s process is the resin of the impregnated foil providing a bond with the melamine-based resin.
Regarding claim 18, Baert discloses a panel (“panel”: e.g. p. 1, l. 32, to p. 15, l. 34) comprising
a substrate and a top layer provided onto the substrate (“core layer” and “top layer”, respectively: e.g. p. 2, ll. 1 – 5, 8 – 12, 24 – 28; p. 2, l. 31, to p. p. 9, l. 10; p. 9, ll. 12 – 16, 20 – 31; p. 10, ll. 1 – 13; p. 10, l. 27, to p. 11, l. 2; p. 11, ll. 13 – 19, 22 – 24; p. 12, ll. 1 – 15, 22 – 29; p. 13, l. 4, to p. 14, l. 24; p. 14, ll. 30 – 33; p. 15, ll. 8 – 14, 21 – 28, 33 – 34)
wherein the top layer comprises at least a melamine-based resin (the “top layer” comprises at least one “kraft paper layer” impregnated with an “adhesive”, said “adhesive” being, e.g., “melamine formaldehyde resins”: e.g. p. 7, l. 4, to p. 8, l. 27) and
wherein the top layer comprises a resin impregnated foil disposed between the melamine-based resin and the substrate (another of the at least one “kraft paper layer” impregnated with an “adhesive”: e.g. p. 7, l. 4, to p. 8, l. 27);
wherein the substrate comprises a magnesium oxide board (magnesium oxide is an example of a “mineral material”/“mineral filler” forming the “core layer”: e.g. p. 2, ll. 1 – 3; p. 3, ll. 1 – 14; p. 5, ll. 15 – 25; p. 13, ll. 11 – 12);
wherein the resin impregnated foil directly contacts the magnesium oxide board (“fusion bonding” without an additional “adhesive layer”: e.g. p. 2, ll. 31 – 33; p. 6, l. 25, to p. 7, l. 2; p. 10, l. 27, to p. 11, l. 2; p. 11, ll. 18 – 20; p. 12, ll. 9 – 11, 28 – 29; p. 14, ll. 22 – 24, 30 – 33; p. 15, ll. 13 – 15, 27 – 28); and
wherein the resin impregnated foil directly contacts the melamine-based resin (adjacent ones of the at least one “kraft paper layer”: e.g. p. 7, l. 4, to p. 8, l. 27);
wherein the resin of the resin impregnated foil provides a bond with the magnesium oxide board (“fusion bonding”: e.g. p. 2, ll. 31 – 33; p. 6, l. 25, to p. 7, l. 2; p. 10, ll. 27 – 34);
wherein the resin of the resin impregnated foil provides a bond with the melamine-based resin (“fusion bonding”: e.g. p. 2, ll. 31 – 33; p. 6, l. 25, to p. 7, l. 2; p. 10, ll. 27 – 34); and
wherein said resin impregnated foil comprises a paper sheet or a Kraft paper sheet (e.g. pp. 7, ll. 6 – 22, 28 – 31; p. 8, ll. 6 – 8; p. 8, l. 34, to p. 9, l. 2).
For clarity, Baert discloses their “top layer” comprises “at least one base layer”, a “decorative layer”, and a “wear layer” stacked on each other, all of which are impregnated with melamine (e.g. p. 8, ll. 6 – 14). Accordingly, a lowest one of the “at least one base layer” corresponds to the resin impregnated foil as this layer is the one having a fusion bond with the “core layer”: e.g. p. 2, ll. 31 – 33; p. 6, l. 25, to p. 7, l. 2). The immediately next layer over this lowest layer provides the claimed melamine-based resin directly contacting the resin impregnated foil.
Additionally, to clarify Baert’s “fusion bonding”, Baert notes “fusion bonding” can result from the contacting surfaces of the “core layer” and the “top layer” having flown to interact with each other under heat and pressure (e.g. p. 10, l. 27, to p. 11, l. 2), thus forming a high-pressure laminate (e.g. p. 7, l. 6, to p. 6, l. 4). Ma clarifies that said flow involves the resin impregnating the paper, including those where melamine is the resin, to integrate a panel (e.g. ¶¶ [0004] – [0007]). Given Baert uses the same materials Ma discusses, Ma confirms that the result of Baert’s process is the resin of the impregnated foil providing a bond with the magnesium oxide board and with the melamine-based resin.
Regarding claim 19, in addition to the limitations of claim 18, Baert discloses said resin impregnated foil comprises a resin, e.g. a melamine-based resin (“melamine formaldehyde resins” as an example of the “adhesive”: e.g. p. 7, l. 28, to p. 8, l. 4).
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baert as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Gleich (DE 10 2011 122 595 A1, referencing a machine translation thereof provided with this Office Action).
Regarding claim 4, in addition to the limitations of claim 3, Baert discloses the paper sheet, or the Kraft paper sheet, is a “decorative layer” (e.g. p. 8, ll. 6 – 8, 12 – 15;) but does not specify a printed paper sheet or printed Kraft paper sheet.
Gleich notes printing is a known technique for imparting decorations to paper sheets (e.g. ¶¶ [0071], [0073]).
As noted with respect to claim 1, Baert’s resin impregnated foil comprises a paper foil and melamine-based resin (e.g. p. 7, l. 4, to p. 8, l. 27). Gleich discloses their moisture content also applies to such foils (e.g. ¶¶ [0013], [0014], [0030], [0049] – [0051], [0053], [0071], [0072], [0074], [0075], [0079]). Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found Gleich’s printing relevant to Baert’s disclosure, particularly in terms of compatibility since the same materials would have been understood to provide predictable results when combining the disclosures of Baert and Gleich.
Accordingly, in order to successfully provide the decorative properties Baert desires, it would have been obvious to provide Baert’s paper sheet or Kraft paper sheet as a printer paper sheet or printed Kraft paper sheet as Gleich suggests.
Claims 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baert as applied to claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 6, in addition to the limitations of claim 1, Baert discloses a resin content in the resin impregnated foil is between 25 and 2000% of foil weight.
More specifically, Baert discloses, as recited, the top layer has a density of “between 1.200 and 1.400 kg/m3” and a thickness of “between 0.2 and 1.5 mm” (e.g. p. 7, ll. 22 – 25). Since weight is density times thickness, Baert’s recitations give a weight of between
1.2
k
g
m
3
×
0.2
m
m
1
×
1
m
1000
m
m
×
1000
g
1
k
g
=
0.25
g
m
2
and
1.4
k
g
m
3
×
1.5
m
m
1
×
1
m
1000
m
m
×
1000
g
1
k
g
=
2.1
g
m
2
for the top layer as a whole. However, this is not possible with the weight of Baert’s “kraft paper layers” being “between 50 and 100 g/m2” (e.g. p. 7, ll. 17 – 18). For the weights Baert discloses to be consistent, the examiner observes the density of Baert’s top layer actually reads as 1200 to 1400 kg/m3, thus providing an impregnated weight of 250 to 2100 g/m2.
Given the resin content has an endpoint of 100% as claimed, the resin content is understood to be in terms of the resin relative to the weight of the foil without the impregnation, i.e. a 100% resin content means an equal amount of resin and unimpregnated foil. With this interpretation, Baert suggests the resin content is
(
250
-
100
)
g
m
2
100
g
m
2
×
100
%
=
150
%
to
(
2100
-
50
)
g
m
2
50
g
m
2
×
100
%
=
4100
%
assuming Baert’s “top layer” contains only a single “kraft paper layer”. While this range of resin content being between 150% to 4100% of the foil weight is above the claimed range, for embodiments where only two “kraft paper layers” are provided, a similar calculation to that done previously gives
(
250
-
200
)
g
m
2
200
g
m
2
×
100
%
=
25
%
to
(
2100
-
100
)
g
m
2
100
g
m
2
×
100
%
=
2000
%
which encompasses the claimed range. Similar calculations can be done for three or more “kraft paper layers”, thus providing further substantial overlap within the encompassing ranges Baert discloses.
In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976). See MPEP § 2144.05, I. “[A] prior art reference that discloses a range encompassing a somewhat narrower claimed range is sufficient to establish a prima facie case of obviousness.” In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379, 1382-83 (Fed. Cir. 2003). See MPEP § 2144.05, I.
Regarding claim 7, in addition to the limitations of claim 1, Baert discloses said resin impregnated foil has a weight after impregnation of between 250 and 2100 g/sqm.
More specifically, Baert discloses, as recited, the top layer has a density of “between 1.200 and 1.400 kg/m3” and a thickness of “between 0.2 and 1.5 mm” (e.g. p. 7, ll. 22 – 25). Since weight is density times thickness, Baert’s recitations give a weight of between
1.2
k
g
m
3
×
0.2
m
m
1
×
1
m
1000
m
m
×
1000
g
1
k
g
=
0.25
g
m
2
and
1.4
k
g
m
3
×
1.5
m
m
1
×
1
m
1000
m
m
×
1000
g
1
k
g
=
2.1
g
m
2
for the top layer as a whole. However, this is not possible with the weight of Baert’s “kraft paper layers” being “between 50 and 100 g/m2” (e.g. p. 7, ll. 17 – 18). For the weights Baert discloses to be consistent, the examiner observes the density of Baert’s top layer actually reads as 1200 to 1400 kg/m3, thus providing an impregnated weight of 250 to 2100 g/m2.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baert (as evidenced by Ma) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Gleich.
Regarding claim 8, although Baert is not explicit as to said resin impregnated foil comprising a moisture content below 6%, this feature would have been obvious in view of Gleich.
At the outset, Baert notes their resin impregnated foil should be moisture resistant (e.g. p. 8, ll. 21 – 22) but does not specify a moisture content related to this.
Gleich resolves this (e.g. ¶¶ [0011] – [0098]), noting a moisture content of less than 1% indicates complete curing of a resin in a resin impregnated foil, thus further indicating the binding capacity of the resin is maximized (“binder” in a “B-stage” has “residual binding capacity” when moisture content is at least 4%, but is reduced to less than 1% once cure is complete: e.g. ¶¶ [0057], [0086], [0087], [0093], [0094], [0097]).
As noted with respect to claim 1, Baert’s resin impregnated foil comprises a paper foil and melamine-based resin (e.g. p. 7, l. 4, to p. 8, l. 27). Gleich discloses their moisture content also applies to such foils (e.g. ¶¶ [0013], [0014], [0030], [0049] – [0051], [0053], [0071], [0072], [0074], [0075], [0079]). Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found Gleich’s moisture content relevant to Baert’s disclosure, particularly in terms of compatibility since the same materials would have been understood to provide predictable results when combining the disclosures of Baert and Gleich.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to provide Baert’s resin impregnated foil with a moisture content below 6%, e.g. below 1%, as Gleich suggests, the motivation being to ensure binding capacity of the resin is maximized.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baert (as evidenced by Ma) as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Ochoa (US 2016/0311136 A1).
Regarding claim 10, although Baert is not explicit as to the binder being urethane based, or the binder being a urethane based acrylic copolymer, this feature would have been obvious in view of Ochoa.
As discussed above with respect to claim 1 and claim 9, Baert discloses the resin impregnated foil may comprise multiple “adhesives” binding the “kraft paper layers”, wherein one “adhesive” corresponds to the resin of the resin impregnated foil, e.g. a melamine-based resin, and another “adhesive” corresponds to a binder (e.g. p. 7, l. 4, to p. 8, l. 27).
Ochoa notes urethane-based binders and melamine-based binders are equivalents for binding papers in high pressure laminates (e.g. ¶¶ [0056] – [0058]). Given this equivalence, Baert’s suggestion to combine binders, and Baert’s relation to forming high pressure laminates with such binders (e.g. p. 7, l. 4, to p. 8, l. 27), one of ordinary skill in the art would have observed a predictable result of combining binders.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to modify Baert’s binder to be, e.g., urethane based, e.g. by combining a urethane-based resin with the melamine-based resin as Ochoa suggests, the rationale being that their combination does no change compared to their function individually without changing the results known in the prior art. MPEP § 2143, I, A
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baert (as evidenced by Ma) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Döhring (US 2016/0326744 A1).
Regarding claim 13, although Baert is not explicit as to the substrate comprising a plurality of phenolic impregnated paper sheets pressed and cured onto each other, this feature would have been obvious in view of Döhring.
Döhring discloses a substrate comprising a plurality of phenolic impregnated paper sheets pressed and cured onto each other and a substrate comprising, e.g., PVC are equivalents for forming panels (e.g. ¶¶ [0047], [0049], [0050]) like Baert discloses. Furthermore, Baert discloses the magnesium oxide board may comprise, in part, PVC (e.g. p. 5, l. 27, to p. 6, l. 6; p. 6, ll. 20 – 23; p. 13, ll. 27 – 29).
Baert also discloses a “backing layer” may be attached to the bottom of the substrate opposite the top layer, the ”backing layer” suitably comprising “paper” as a high-pressure laminate (e.g. p. 9, ll. 8 – 18).
“It is prima facie obvious to combine two compositions each of which is taught by the prior art to be useful for the same purpose, in order to form a third composition to be used for the very same purpose.... [T]he idea of combining them flows logically from their having been individually taught in the prior art.” In re Kerkhoven, 626 F.2d 846, 850, 205 USPQ 1069, 1072 (CCPA 1980). See also MPEP § 2144.06, I.
For this reason, it would have been obvious for the substrate to comprise a plurality of phenolic impregnated paper sheets pressed and cured onto each other as Döhring discloses. Baert suggests a combination where the “backing layer” can be such phenolic impregnated paper sheets, thus maintaining a structure where resin of the resin impregnated foil can directly bond with the magnesium oxide board.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baert (as evidenced by Ma) as applied to claim 18 above, and further in view of Döhring.
Regarding claim 20, although Baert is not explicit as to the substrate comprising a plurality of phenolic impregnated paper sheets pressed and cured onto each other, this feature would have been obvious in view of Döhring.
Döhring discloses a substrate comprising a plurality of phenolic impregnated paper sheets pressed and cured onto each other and a substrate comprising, e.g., PVC are equivalents for forming panels (e.g. ¶¶ [0047], [0049], [0050]) like Baert discloses. Furthermore, Baert discloses the magnesium oxide board may comprise, in part, PVC (e.g. p. 5, l. 27, to p. 6, l. 6; p. 6, ll. 20 – 23; p. 13, ll. 27 – 29).
Baert also discloses a “backing layer” may be attached to the bottom of the substrate opposite the top layer, the ”backing layer” suitably comprising “paper” as a high-pressure laminate (e.g. p. 9, ll. 8 – 18).
“It is prima facie obvious to combine two compositions each of which is taught by the prior art to be useful for the same purpose, in order to form a third composition to be used for the very same purpose.... [T]he idea of combining them flows logically from their having been individually taught in the prior art.” In re Kerkhoven, 626 F.2d 846, 850, 205 USPQ 1069, 1072 (CCPA 1980). See also MPEP § 2144.06, I.
For this reason, it would have been obvious for the substrate to comprise a plurality of phenolic impregnated paper sheets pressed and cured onto each other as Döhring discloses. Baert suggests a combination where the “backing layer” can be such phenolic impregnated paper sheets, thus maintaining a structure where resin of the resin impregnated foil can directly bond with the magnesium oxide board.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pp. 8 – 12, filed 26 June 2026, with respect to the rejections of claims 1 – 11, 13, 15, and 16 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Baert.
Applicant asserts patentability over Drees (US 2002/0146954 A1) and Chu (US 2016/0159032 A1) in that these references fail to disclose or suggest a panel wherein the resin impregnated foil directly contacts both the magnesium oxide board and the melamine-based resin such that the resin of the resin impregnated foil provides a bond with the magnesium oxide board.
The examiner cites Baert to address this deficiency. Using Ma as an evidentiary reference to better highlight disclosures within Baert, it is observed Baert provides a method wherein the melamine-based resin impregnated into the paper forming the resin impregnated foil is allowed to bond with a magnesium oxide board with no intervening adhesive layer to establish a “fusion bond”. Because the melamine-based resin is used with respect to multiple paper layers, the asserted deficiencies naturally occur as a result of following the process Baert discloses, wherein Ma provides evidentiary reference to confirm this phenomenon.
Accordingly, new grounds of rejection are presented herein.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ETHAN A UTT whose telephone number is (571)270-0356. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday, 7:30 A.M. to 5:00 P.M. Central.
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, Veronica Ewald can be reached at 571-272-8519. 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.
/ETHAN A. UTT/Examiner, Art Unit 1783
/MARIA V EWALD/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1783
Prosecution Insights