DETAILED ACTION
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 05/27/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
In response to the amendment received on 05/27/2026:
claims 1-20 are currently pending
claims 1-5 are withdrawn from consideration
claims 6 and 12-14 are amended
claims 16-20 are added
new prior art grounds of rejection applying Cauwenberge, Rick, Fang, Sherman, Boucke, Cappelle and Hofer are presented herein
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 text of those sections of Title 35 U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office Action.
Claims 6-10, 13 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van Cauwenberge et.al. (EP 2060389 A1), hereinafter referred to as CAUWENBERGE, in view of Fang et al. (US 20200047469 A1), hereinafter referred to as FANG, and De Rick et al. (WO 2019064113 A1), hereinafter referred to as RICK.
Regarding claim 6, CAUWENBERGE teaches a method of manufacturing a coated panel (see CAUWENBERGE at paragraph [0004]: laminated panel),
wherein the method comprises the step of providing a board (paragraph [0011]: core layer such as magnesium oxide board), wherein the board is a single-layered (see CAUWENBERGE at paragraphs [0008]: a laminate panel generally comprises a surface layer placed on top of a core layer) mineral board comprising magnesium oxychloride (MOC) (see CAUWENBERGE at paragraph [0011]: composition derived from a colloidal mixture of magnesium oxide, magnesium chloride and water) or magnesium oxysulphate (MOS), wherein the mineral board has a residual moisture content of 7% or below (see CAUWENBERGE at paragraph [0011]: water content between 5% and 9%). CAUWENBERGE teaches a range which overlaps and renders obvious the claimed range. 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. See MPEP §2144.05(I);
wherein the method comprises the step of providing the board with a decorative layer, by means of a press operation wherein a melamine treated paper sheet is heat pressed to said board (see CAUWENBERGE at paragraph [0009]: decorative layer may be a decor paper in the form of a web or a sheet imprinted with a high-resolution photo-reproduction of e.g., wood grain, natural stone or laminate tile pattern; such paper is usually placed on the core layer and bonded thereto by pressing under elevated pressure; the surface layer additionally may be impregnated with a fire retardant such as melamine).
wherein the coated panel is provided at least two opposite edges with coupling parts allowing to couple two of such coated panels at the respective edges, in that the coupling parts are arranged for vertical locking perpendicular to a plane of coupled coated panels and/or a horizontal locking perpendicular to the respective edges and in the plane of the coupled coated panels (see CAUWENBERGE at Fig. 4 and paragraph [0044]: at least two opposite edges (5, 6) of the core layer (3) are provided with a profile allowing multiple laminate panels according to the invention to be interlocked when placed side-by-side in a same plane in horizontal direction as shown in Figure 4);
wherein the coupling parts are shaped as a tongue and a groove, wherein the groove is bordered by an upper lip and a lower lip (see CAUWENBERGE at paragraph [0044]: configurations of tongues and grooves; and Annotated Fig. 4);
wherein the lower lip extends beyond the upper lip in a direction in the plane of the panel and perpendicular to a longitudinal direction of the groove (see Annotated Fig. 4).
PNG
media_image1.png
207
782
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 4
While CAUWENBERGE discloses that the composition derived from colloidal mixture of magnesium oxide, magnesium chloride and water is reinforced with a strengthening material, such a s fiberglass fibres (see CAUWENBERGE at paragraphs [0023-24]), CAUWENBERGE fails to explicitly teach the board comprising wood fibers.
However, FANG discloses a composite floor, sequentially including a wear layer, an artificial mineral board and a back lay which are laminated and bonded with one another (see FANG at paragraph [0006]). FANG teaches that the raw material forming the modified mineral layers includes a mineral base material, wood chips, a modifier, water; and the mineral base material includes magnesium oxide and magnesium chloride (see FANG at paragraph [0008]). FANG also teaches that the disclosed invention utilizes the wood chips as the raw materials, and thus uses flexible plant fibers contained in the wood chips to improve the toughness of the artificial mineral board and reduce the density of the artificial mineral board; and additionally, using the wood chips as the raw materials for preparing the artificial mineral board can improve the utilization rate of the wood chips and reduce environmental pollution caused by burning the wood chips (see FANG at paragraph [0031]).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the potential benefit of improving the core layer of CAUWENBERGE based on the teachings of CAUWENBERGE describing that the composition derived from colloidal mixture of magnesium oxide, magnesium chloride and water is reinforced with a strengthening material (see CAUWENBERGE at paragraphs [0023-24]). Moreover, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to utilize the wood chips as disclosed by FANG since FANG explicitly teaches that the wood chips improve the toughness of the artificial mineral board and reduce the density of the artificial mineral board; and additionally, using the wood chips as the raw materials for preparing the artificial mineral board can improve the utilization rate of the wood chips and reduce environmental pollution caused by burning the wood chips (see FANG at paragraph [0031]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the board of CAUWENBERGE by utilizing wood chips as a reinforcing material as disclosed by FANG in order to improve the toughness of the artificial mineral board and reduce the density of the artificial mineral board; as well as to improve the utilization rate of the wood chips and reduce environmental pollution caused by burning the wood chips.
While CAUWENBERGE discloses that laminate panels according to the invention may be assembled and disassembled reliably and form-fittingly due to the configuration of the groove corresponding to the configuration of the tongue; configurations of tongues and grooves may be of simplistic design as shown in Figures 1 and 2 or may have more complex designs such as shown in Figures 3 and 4; and that in general, laminate panels according to the present invention may be combined with all types of known locking systems (see CAUWENBERGE at paragraph [0044] and Fig. 1-4), CAUWENGERGE is silent with respect to the difference between the upper and the lower lip of the lips which border the groove, measured in the plane of the panel and perpendicular to the longitudinal direction of the groove, being smaller than one time a total thickness of the panel.
However, RICK discloses a panel, more particularly a floor, wall or ceiling panel, wherein this panel comprises a core and a provided thereon decorative top layer, with the characteristic that the aforementioned core comprises a magnesium oxide (MgO and/or MgO2) based board material and wherein the aforementioned panel, on at least two opposite edges, is provided with mechanical coupling means allowing that two of such panels can be interlocked at the respective edges (see RICK at lines 10-15, p. 2). RICK also discloses that the magnesium oxide-based board material comprises fillers, such as wood particles, cork particles, bamboo particles, hemp particles, flax shives or other vegetable particles (see RICK at lines 32-34, p. 2); the board also comprises decorative top layer, comprising a paper sheet or a plastic foil, such as a polyvinyl chloride (PVC) foil, a polyethylene terephthalate (PET) foil, a polypropylene (PP) foil, a polyurethane (PU) foil and the like, and when this relates to a paper sheet, this preferably relates to a paper sheet which as such is provided, for example, is impregnated, with a synthetic material, such as with melamine resin, acrylate-based or acrylate-containing resin, PVC or PU (see RICK at lines 1-5, p. 6). RICK teaches that the mechanical coupling means are realized a substantially as a tongue and a groove connection, wherein the groove is bordered by an upper lip and a lower lip (see RICK at lines 5-7, p. 4). RICK also teaches that the lower lip extends in horizontal direction to beyond the upper lip (see RICK at lines 34-35, p. 4). RICK discloses that the possible vertically active locking surfaces between the lower side of the tongue and the upper side of the lower lip are situated substantially, and even entirely, on the protruding part of the lower lip, namely on that part of the lower lip which extends beyond the distal end of the upper lip; preferably, in the coupled condition there is a space between the lower side of the tongue and the upper side of the lower lip, wherein this space preferably extends horizontally underneath the tongue at least from on the tip of the tongue to beyond the distal end of the upper lip; in this manner, the risk of breaking of the tongue when turning the tongue into the groove is minimized, whereas still a sufficient vertical locking is obtained (see RICK at lines 25-34, p. 9). Additionally RICK teaches that the length L2 of the protruding part 48 of the lower lip 13 is at least 80% of the thickness T1 of the mineral-based board material 4 (see RICK at lines 26-28, p. 16; and Fig. 7).
RICK teaches that Figure 7 represents a variant, wherein the coupling means 9, for example, the coupling means 9 of the long opposite edges 5-6, show some preferred characteristics, which each separately or in any combination offer an edge profile which is ideally suited for being applied in a floor panel 1 with a core 2 of mineral- based board material 4, such as a magnesium oxide-based board material (see RICK at lines 5-8, p. 16), and CAUWENBERGE discloses that in general, laminate panels according to the disclosed invention may be combined with all types of known locking systems (see CAUWENBERGE at paragraph [0044] and Fig. 1-4). Furthermore, according to MPEP § 2144.06(I), "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). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the board of CAUWENBERGE by including the tongue-and-groove configuration wherein the difference between the upper and the lower lip of the lips which border the groove, measured in the plane of the panel and perpendicular to the longitudinal direction of the groove, being smaller a total thickness of the panel, e.g., at least 80%, as disclosed by RICK based on teachings of RICK describing that ; in this manner, the risk of breaking of the tongue when turning the tongue into the groove is minimized, whereas still a sufficient vertical locking is obtained (see RICK at lines 25-34, p. 9).
Regarding claim 7, CAUWENBERGE as modified by FANG and RICK teaches the method of claim 6, wherein the mineral board has a residual moisture content of 5% or below (see CAUWENBERGE at paragraph [0011]: water content between 5% and 9%). CAUWENBERGE teaches a range which overlaps and renders obvious the claimed range.
Regarding claim 8, CAUWENBERGE as modified by FANG and RICK teaches the method of claim 6, wherein the mineral board has a residual moisture content of more than 4% (see CAUWENBERGE at paragraph [0011]: water content between 5% and 9%). CAUWENBERGE teaches a range which overlaps and renders obvious the claimed range.
Regarding claim 9, CAUWENERGE as modified by FANG and RICK teaches the method of claim 6, wherein the method comprises the step of providing a board (see CAUWENBERGE at paragraph [0011]: core layer such as magnesium oxide board), wherein the board is a mineral board comprising magnesium oxychloride (MOC) (see CAUWENBERGE at paragraph [0011]: composition derived from a colloidal mixture of magnesium oxide, magnesium chloride and water) or magnesium oxysulphate (MOS), and wherein the method comprises the step of drying the board to a residual moisture content of 7% or below (see CAUWENBERGE at paragraph [0011]: the magnesium oxide board is preferably dried prior to performing the melamine impregnation to lower its water content to between 5% and 9%). CAUWENBERGE teaches a range which overlaps and renders obvious the claimed range.
Regarding claim 10, CAUWENBERGE as modified by FANG and RICK teaches the method of claim 6, wherein prior to said step of drying a polymer is applied to one or more surfaces of said board (see CAUWENBERGE at paragraph [0009]: the surface layer may also be a layer of thermoplastic material, rubber; the surface layer additionally may be impregnated with a fire retardant such as melamine).
Regarding claim 13, CAUWENBERGE as modified by FANG and RICK teaches the method of claim 6, wherein said melamine treated paper sheet is a printed paper sheet treated with a melamine formaldehyde (MF) resin, or with a combination of a melamine formaldehyde resin and a polyurethane (PU) or an acrylate resin. While CAUWENBERGE discloses that the decorative layer may be a decor paper in the form of a web or a sheet imprinted with a high-resolution photo-reproduction of e.g., wood grain, natural stone or laminate tile pattern; that such paper is usually placed on the core layer and bonded thereto by pressing under elevated pressure; the surface layer additionally may be impregnated with a fire retardant such as melamine (see CAUWENBERGE at paragraph [0009]), CAUWENBERGE fails to explicitly teach melamine treated paper treated with a melamine formaldehyde (MF) resin.
However, FANG discloses that composite floor includes a wear layer and a back lay which are laminated and bonded on the top layer and the bottom layer of the artificial mineral board (see FANG at paragraph [0045]). Furthermore, FANG teaches that the wear layer is preferably pasted onto one face of the artificial mineral board via an adhesive; and the adhesive preferably includes a polyurethane adhesive and/or a melamine formaldehyde resin adhesive; and more preferably a melamine formaldehyde resin adhesive (see FANG at paragraph [0046]). FANG also teaches that the method for preparing the wear-resistant paper preferably includes: immersing a decorative paper with a mixture containing an adhesive and a wear-resistant material to obtain the wear-resistant paper (see FANG at paragraph [0063]).
Both CAUWENBERGE and FANG describe composite boards comprising melamine-impregnated paper layer. According to MPEP § 2144.06(I), "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). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of manufacturing a laminated panel of CAUWENBERGE by treating a printed paper with a melamine formaldehyde resin as disclosed by FANG, because there is a reasonable expectation of success that utilizing a melamine formaldehyde resin disclosed by FANG would be suitable.
Regarding claim 16, CAUWENBERGE as modified by FANG and RICK teaches the method of claim 6, wherein the board is free from glass fiber nets or unwoven structures (CAUWENBERGE does not teach the board comprising glass fiber nets or unwoven structures, thus, reading on limitation of claim 16).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CAUWENBERGE in view of FANG and RICK as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Sherman et al. (GB 2133427 A), hereinafter referred to as SHERMAN.
Regarding claim 11, CAUWENBERGE as modified by FANG and RICK teaches the method of claim 6. While CAUWENBERGE discloses that the core layer may further comprise a strengthening material (see CAUWENBERGE at paragraph [0022]), CAUWENBERGE fails to explicitly teach wherein said board comprises at least one additive selected form the list of metal soap, silanes, siloxanes or siliconates or a combination of both.
However, SHERMAN discloses the manufacture of shaped products from fibers and binders including celling panels and tiles, wall boards, construction panels (see SHERMAN at lines 3-6, p. 1). SHERMAN teaches suitable inorganic binders including Sorel cements such as magnesium oxychloride (see SHERMAN at lines 2-4, p. 2). SHERMAN also teaches that a silane coupling agent may be advantageously employed; with inorganic binding systems it can substantially increase strength (see SHERMAN at lines 1-4, p. 3).
Both CAUWENBERGE’s and SHERMAN’s disclosures are from the same field of endeavor and describe a panel including a board comprising magnesium oxychloride. According to MPEP § 2144.06(I), "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).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of CAUWENBERGE by including silane coupling into the board as disclosed by SHERMAN since SHERMAN explicitly teaches that silane coupling can substantially increase strength.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CAUWENBERGE in view of FANG and RICK as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Boucke et al. (WO 2020114645 A1), hereinafter referred to as BOUCKE.
Regarding claim 12, CAUWENBERGE as modified by FANG and RICK teaches the method of claim 6. While CAUWENBERGE teaches that the composition of core layer material may additionally comprise filler and binder agents (see CAUWENBERGE at paragraphs [0027] and [0029]), CAUWENBERGE is silent with respect to the board comprising a binder selected from a list of latex, acrylic, polyurethane, polyvinylalcohol (PVA), ethylene vinylacetate (EVA), PVAc, acrylic styrene, silicate glue, silane and siloxanes.
However, BOUCKE discloses a decorative panel comprising: a core provided with an upper side and a lower side, a decorative top structure affixed on said upper side of the core, a first panel edge comprising a first coupling profile, and a second panel edge comprising a second coupling profile being designed to engage interlockingly with said first coupling profile of an adjacent panel, both in horizontal direction and in vertical direction, wherein said core comprises: at least one composite layer comprising: at least one magnesium oxide (magnesia) and/or magnesium hydroxide based composition, in particular a magnesia cement; particles, in particular cellulose based particles, dispersed in said magnesia cement (see BOUCKE at lines 32, p. 1 – lines 1-7, p. 2). BOUCKE teaches that the composite layer comprises preferably at least one additional filler selected from a group consisting of: polypropylene, acrylic, polyethylene, PVA; and that may further increase the strength of the panel and/or the water resistivity and/or the fireproof properties of the panel (see BOUCKE at lines 4-9, p. 9).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the potential benefit of improving the panel of CAUWENBERGE based on the teachings of CAUWENBERGE describing that the composition of core layer material may additionally comprise filler and binder agents (see CAUWENBERGE at paragraphs [0027] and [0029]). Moreover, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify the panel of CAUWENBERGE by adding one of the fillers disclosed by BOUCKE, e.g., PVA, since BOUCKE explicitly teaches that addition of a filler may further increase the strength of the panel and/or the water resistivity and/or the fireproof properties of the panel (see BOUCKE at lines 4-9, p. 9). Furthermore, since both CAUWENBERGE and BOUCKE describe the mineral board of very similar compositions, there is a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP § 2144.06(I): "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).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the panel of CAUWENBERGE by adding one of the fillers disclosed by BOUCKE, e.g., PVA, in order to further increase the strength of the panel and/or the water resistivity and/or the fireproof properties of the panel.
Claims 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CAUWENBERGE in view of FANG and RICK as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Hofer et al. (CA 2957138 C), hereinafter referred to as HOFER.
Regarding claim 14, CAUWENBERGE as modified by FANG and RICK teaches the method of claim 6, but fails to explicitly teach the method comprising one or a combination of more than one feature selected form the list:
the melamine treated paper sheet has a raw paper weight of 50 to 100 grams per square meter;
the melamine treated paper sheet has a resin content of 50 to 130 gram per square meter dry weight.
FANG discloses that the method for preparing the wear-resistant paper preferably includes: immersing a decorative paper with a mixture containing an adhesive and a wear-resistant material to obtain the wear-resistant paper, the adhesive preferably includes a melamine resin (see rejection of claim 13 above); the present invention has no special requirement on the mass ratio of the adhesive to the wear-resistant material, and a mass ratio well known to those skilled in the art can be used; the present invention has no particular requirement on the particular forming manner of the mixture, and a manner well known to those skilled in the art can be used (see FANG at paragraph [0063]).
Furthermore, HOFER discloses a composite board composed of wood material, which are suitable for applying decorative coatings (see HOFER at paragraph 1, p. 1). HOFER teaches an artificial-resin-impregnated paper inserted between the middle layer and at least one outer layer (see HOFER at paragraph 4, p. 2). Additionally, HOFER teaches that the artificial-resin-impregnated paper consists of a paper web, wherein the paper web is impregnated with an artificial liquid resin and then dried; the paper web itself as raw paper without artificial resin preferably has a surface weight of 15 g/m2 to 100 g/m2; the artificial resin is preferably selected from the group which includes urea, melamine, phenol-formaldehyde resin or combinations of the aforementioned artificial resins (see HOFER at paragraph 5, p. 2). HOFER also teaches that the artificial resin is dried after the impregnation of the paper, and it is used in a quantity of 30 g/m2 to 200 g/m2 (see HOFER at paragraph 1, p. 3). Finally, HOFER discloses that since the artificial-resin-impregnated paper is an economically available product, and since existing production facilities (short-cycle press) can be used, the composition board can be produced economically (see HOFER at paragraph 1, p. 5).
Both CAUWENBERGE as modified by FANG, RICK and HOFER describe composite boards comprising melamine-impregnated paper layer. According to MPEP § 2144.06(I), "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). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the composition of CAUWENBERGE as modified by FANG and RICK by utilizing the resin treated paper having raw paper surface weight of 15 g/m2 to 100 g/m2 and dried resin content of 30 g/m2 to 200 g/m2, as disclosed by HOFER, based on teachings of HOFER describing that since the artificial-resin-impregnated paper is an economically available product, and since existing production facilities (short-cycle press) can be used, the composition board can be produced economically (see HOFER at paragraph 1, p. 5).
The rationale for such modification would have been combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. See MPEP §2143(I) (Exemplary rationale (A)).
Regarding claim 15, CAUWENBERGE as modified by FANG, RICK and HOFER teaches the method of claim 6, wherein said decorative layer is applied to the board by means of a heated press treatment wherein a stack comprising said board, and at least said printed paper sheet treated with resin, is brought into a heated press equipment (see CAUWENBERGE at paragraph [0009]: the surface layer is usually a decorative layer adhered on top of the core layer giving the panel a desired look; such paper is usually placed on the core layer and bonded thereto by pressing under elevated pressure; the surface layer additionally may be impregnated with a fire retardant such as melamine). While CAUWENBERGE teaches heated press treatment, CAUWENBERGE is silent with respect to the pressing at a pressure of at least 20 bars, and a temperature of at least 120°C during at least 10 seconds, wherein a consolidation of the stack is attained together with a curing of the available resin.
However, FANG, similarly to CAUWENBERGE, teaches a method of manufacturing a composite floor, sequentially including a wear layer, an artificial mineral board and a back lay which are laminated and bonded with one another (see FANG at paragraph [0006]). FANG teaches that the raw material forming the modified mineral layers includes a mineral base material, wood chips, a modifier, water; and the mineral base material includes magnesium oxide and magnesium chloride (see FANG at paragraph [0008]). FANG also teaches that the wear layer is preferably pasted onto one face of the artificial mineral board via an adhesive; and the adhesive preferably includes a polyurethane adhesive and/or a melamine formaldehyde resin adhesive; and more preferably a melamine formaldehyde resin adhesive (see FANG at paragraph [0046]). Additionally, FANG teaches a method of manufacturing a floor panel comprising the steps of pasting a wear-resistant paper onto a top layer of an artificial mineral board, pasting a balance paper onto a bottom layer of the artificial mineral board, and hot pressing (see FANG at paragraph [0060]); wherein the hot-pressing temperature is preferably 100-190° C; the hot-pressing pressure is preferably 2-15 MPa/20-150 bars; and the hot-pressing time is preferably 0.5-30 min (see FANG at paragraph [0067]).
Both CAUWENBERGE and FANG disclose the methods of manufacturing a laminated panel by bonding the melamine-impregnated printed surface layer and a mineral core layer by pressing under elevated pressure. Since, CAUWENBERGE and FANG disclose utilizing layer of very similar compositions, one of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success that utilizing hot pressing conditions disclosed by FANG, such as temperature of 100-190° C; the hot-pressing pressure of 2-15 MPa/20-150 bars; and the hot-pressing time of 0.5-30 min, would be suitable.
The rationale for such modification would have been combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. See MPEP §2143(I) (Exemplary rationale (A)).
Claims 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CAUWENBERGE in view of FANG and RICK as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Cappelle et al. (GB 2133427 A), hereinafter referred to as CAPPELLE.
Regarding claims 17-18, CAUWENBERGE as modified by FANG and RICK teaches the method of claim 6, but is CAUWENGERGE, FANG and RICK are silent with respect to the board at at least one edge or at at least two opposite edges being treated with a sealant (claim 17), wherein the sealant is an alkali resistant sealant selected from a list consisting of paraffin, latex, acrylic, polyurethane, polyvinylalchohol (PVA), ethylene vinylacetate (EVA), PVAc dispersion, acrylic styrene emulsion, silicate glue, solvent based one component or two component, polyurethane resin, silane, or siloxanes (claim 18).
However, CAPPELLE discloses a floor panel having two opposite edges including coupling parts with a configuration that allows the coupling parts to be brought into each other by a downward movement; the coupling parts allow locking in the plane of the panels and perpendicular to the edges by way of locking parts in the form of hook-shaped parts (see CAPPELLE at Abstract). CAPPELLE teaches that preferably, on the respective edge by means of the synthetic edge part a water-repellent or waterproofing protection of the core material is realized; and that said synthetic material of the edge part relates to a thermo-hardening synthetic material, for example, a material on the basis of polyurea, epoxy or polyurethane (see CAPPELLE at Col. 5, lines 51-67; and Fig. 7: FIG. 12 represents coupling means 39-40 provided with such sealing covering layer 47: for the water-repellent substance, polyurethane-based hot-melt glue is used).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the potential benefit of improving the board of CAUWENBERGE by applying a polyurethane-based sealant to the edge as disclosed by CAPPELLE since CAPPELLE explicitly teaches the use of a sealant for water-repellant or waterproofing protection (see CAPPELLE at Col. 5, lines 51-67).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the board of CAUWENBERGE by applying a polyurethane-based sealant to the edge as disclosed by CAPPELLE in order to provide waterproofing protection.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CAUWENBERGE in view of FANG and RICK as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Pizzi A. (Melamine-formaldehyde adhesives, Chapter 32, Pizzi and Mittal 2003. 10.1201/9780203912225), hereinafter referred to as PIZZI.
Regarding claim 19, CAUWENBERGE as modified by FANG and RICK teaches the method of claim 13. While FANG discloses that when the resin adhesive is a mixture of two components, the present invention has no special requirement on the dosage ratio of respective components in the mixture; and that there is no special requirement on sources of the polyurethane adhesive and the melamine formaldehyde resin adhesive, and a commercially available product well known to those skilled in the art can be use (see rejection of claim 13 above and FANG at paragraph [0046]), FANG is silent with respect to the a melamine formaldehyde (MF) resin comprising a melamine to formaldehyde ratio of 1:1.5 or higher.
However, PIZZI discloses that melamine-formaldehyde (MF) resins are among the most used adhesives for the preparation and bonding of both low- and high-pressure paper laminates and overlays (see PIZZI at I. Introduction, p. 1). PIZZI teaches that MF adhesives for plywood and particleboard must have lower viscosity and high resin solid content (see PIZZI at last paragraph, p. 7); and that the higher degree of polymerization of the major part of the resin gives fast cross-linking, and curing (see PIZZI at 2nd paragraph, p. 8). PIZZI also teaches that typical total melamine/formaldehyde molar ratios used in this system are 1:1.5 to 1:1.7 (see PIZZI at 2nd paragraph, p. 8; and Figure 3).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have anticipated success when utilizing MF resin comprising melamine/formaldehyde molar ratios in the range from 1:1.5 to 1:1.7, as disclosed by PIZZI in the board of CAUWENBERGE as modified by FANG based on the teachings of FANG describing that there is no special requirement on sources of the polyurethane adhesive and the melamine formaldehyde resin adhesive, and a commercially available product well known to those skilled in the art can be use (see FANG at paragraph [0046]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the board of CAUWENBERGE as modified by FANG by utilizing MF resin comprising a melamine to formaldehyde ratio of 1:1.5 or higher, as disclosed by PIZZI, since PIZZI explicitly teaches that the higher degree of polymerization of the major part of the resin gives fast cross-linking, and curing (see PIZZI at 2nd paragraph, p. 8).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CAUWENBERGE, in view of FANG, RICK and CAPPELLE.
Regarding claim 20, CAUWENBERGE teaches a method of manufacturing a coated panel (see CAUWENBERGE at paragraph [0004]: laminated panel),
wherein the method comprises the step of providing a board (paragraph [0011]: core layer such as magnesium oxide board), wherein the board is a single-layered (see CAUWENBERGE at paragraphs [0008]: a laminate panel generally comprises a surface layer placed on top of a core layer) mineral board comprising magnesium oxychloride (MOC) (see CAUWENBERGE at paragraph [0011]: composition derived from a colloidal mixture of magnesium oxide, magnesium chloride and water) or magnesium oxysulphate (MOS), wherein the mineral board has a residual moisture content of 7% or below (see CAUWENBERGE at paragraph [0011]: water content between 5% and 9%). CAUWENBERGE teaches a range which overlaps and renders obvious the claimed range;
wherein the method comprises the step of providing the board with a decorative layer, by means of a press operation wherein a melamine treated paper sheet is heat pressed to said board (see CAUWENBERGE at paragraph [0009]: decorative layer may be a decor paper in the form of a web or a sheet imprinted with a high-resolution photo-reproduction of e.g., wood grain, natural stone or laminate tile pattern; such paper is usually placed on the core layer and bonded thereto by pressing under elevated pressure; the surface layer additionally may be impregnated with a fire retardant such as melamine).
wherein the coated panel is provided at least two opposite edges with coupling parts allowing to couple two of such coated panels at the respective edges, in that the coupling parts are arranged for vertical locking perpendicular to a plane of coupled coated panels and/or a horizontal locking perpendicular to the respective edges and in the plane of the coupled coated panels (see CAUWENBERGE at Fig. 4 and paragraph [0044]: at least two opposite edges (5, 6) of the core layer (3) are provided with a profile allowing multiple laminate panels according to the invention to be interlocked when placed side-by-side in a same plane in horizontal direction as shown in Figure 4);
wherein the coupling parts are shaped as a tongue and a groove, wherein the groove is bordered by an upper lip and a lower lip (see CAUWENBERGE at paragraph [0044]: configurations of tongues and grooves; and Annotated Fig. 4);
wherein the lower lip extends beyond the upper lip in a direction in the plane of the panel and perpendicular to a longitudinal direction of the groove (see Annotated Fig. 4 above);
wherein the board is free from glass fiber nets or unwoven structures (CAUWENBERGE does not teach the board comprising glass fiber nets or unwoven structures, thus, reading on the claimed limitation).
While CAUWENBERGE discloses that the composition derived from colloidal mixture of magnesium oxide, magnesium chloride and water is reinforced with a strengthening material, such a s fiberglass fibres (see CAUWENBERGE at paragraphs [0023-24]), CAUWENBERGE fails to explicitly teach the board comprising wood fibers.
However, FANG discloses a composite floor, sequentially including a wear layer, an artificial mineral board and a back lay which are laminated and bonded with one another (see FANG at paragraph [0006]). FANG teaches that the raw material forming the modified mineral layers includes a mineral base material, wood chips, a modifier, water; and the mineral base material includes magnesium oxide and magnesium chloride (see FANG at paragraph [0008]). FANG also teaches that the disclosed invention utilizes the wood chips as the raw materials, and thus uses flexible plant fibers contained in the wood chips to improve the toughness of the artificial mineral board and reduce the density of the artificial mineral board; and additionally, using the wood chips as the raw materials for preparing the artificial mineral board can improve the utilization rate of the wood chips and reduce environmental pollution caused by burning the wood chips (see FANG at paragraph [0031]).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the potential benefit of improving the core layer of CAUWENBERGE based on the teachings of CAUWENBERGE describing that the composition derived from colloidal mixture of magnesium oxide, magnesium chloride and water is reinforced with a strengthening material (see CAUWENBERGE at paragraphs [0023-24]). Moreover, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to utilize the wood chips as disclosed by FANG since FANG explicitly teaches that the wood chips improve the toughness of the artificial mineral board and reduce the density of the artificial mineral board; and additionally, using the wood chips as the raw materials for preparing the artificial mineral board can improve the utilization rate of the wood chips and reduce environmental pollution caused by burning the wood chips (see FANG at paragraph [0031]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the board of CAUWENBERGE by utilizing wood chips as a reinforcing material as disclosed by FANG in order to improve the toughness of the artificial mineral board and reduce the density of the artificial mineral board; as well as to improve the utilization rate of the wood chips and reduce environmental pollution caused by burning the wood chips.
While CAUWENBERGE discloses that the decorative layer may be a decor paper in the form of a web or a sheet imprinted with a high-resolution photo-reproduction of e.g., wood grain, natural stone or laminate tile pattern; that such paper is usually placed on the core layer and bonded thereto by pressing under elevated pressure; the surface layer additionally may be impregnated with a fire retardant such as melamine (see CAUWENBERGE at paragraph [0009]), CAUWENBERGE fails to explicitly teach melamine treated paper treated with a melamine formaldehyde (MF) resin.
However, FANG discloses that composite floor includes a wear layer and a back lay which are laminated and bonded on the top layer and the bottom layer of the artificial mineral board (see FANG at paragraph [0045]). Furthermore, FANG teaches that the wear layer is preferably pasted onto one face of the artificial mineral board via an adhesive; and the adhesive preferably includes a polyurethane adhesive and/or a melamine formaldehyde resin adhesive; and more preferably a melamine formaldehyde resin adhesive (see FANG at paragraph [0046]). FANG also teaches that the method for preparing the wear-resistant paper preferably includes: immersing a decorative paper with a mixture containing an adhesive and a wear-resistant material to obtain the wear-resistant paper (see FANG at paragraph [0063]).
Both CAUWENBERGE and FANG describe composite boards comprising melamine-impregnated paper layer. According to MPEP § 2144.06(I), "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). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of manufacturing a laminated panel of CAUWENBERGE by treating a printed paper with a melamine formaldehyde resin as disclosed by FANG, because there is a reasonable expectation of success that utilizing a melamine formaldehyde resin disclosed by FANG would be suitable.
While CAUWENBERGE discloses that laminate panels according to the invention may be assembled and disassembled reliably and form-fittingly due to the configuration of the groove corresponding to the configuration of the tongue; configurations of tongues and grooves may be of simplistic design as shown in Figures 1 and 2 or may have more complex designs such as shown in Figures 3 and 4; and that in general, laminate panels according to the present invention may be combined with all types of known locking systems (see CAUWENBERGE at paragraph [0044] and Fig. 1-4), CAUWENGERGE is silent with respect to the difference between the upper and the lower lip of the lips which border the groove, measured in the plane of the panel and perpendicular to the longitudinal direction of the groove, being smaller than one time a total thickness of the panel.
However, RICK discloses a panel, more particularly a floor, wall or ceiling panel, wherein this panel comprises a core and a provided thereon decorative top layer, with the characteristic that the aforementioned core comprises a magnesium oxide (MgO and/or MgO2) based board material and wherein the aforementioned panel, on at least two opposite edges, is provided with mechanical coupling means allowing that two of such panels can be interlocked at the respective edges (see RICK at lines 10-15, p. 2). RICK also discloses that the magnesium oxide-based board material comprises fillers, such as wood particles, cork particles, bamboo particles, hemp particles, flax shives or other vegetable particles (see RICK at lines 32-34, p. 2); the board also comprises decorative top layer, comprising a paper sheet or a plastic foil, such as a polyvinyl chloride (PVC) foil, a polyethylene terephthalate (PET) foil, a polypropylene (PP) foil, a polyurethane (PU) foil and the like, and when this relates to a paper sheet, this preferably relates to a paper sheet which as such is provided, for example, is impregnated, with a synthetic material, such as with melamine resin, acrylate-based or acrylate-containing resin, PVC or PU (see RICK at lines 1-5, p. 6). RICK teaches that the mechanical coupling means are realized a substantially as a tongue and a groove connection, wherein the groove is bordered by an upper lip and a lower lip (see RICK at lines 5-7, p. 4). RICK also teaches that the lower lip extends in horizontal direction to beyond the upper lip (see RICK at lines 34-35, p. 4). RICK discloses that the possible vertically active locking surfaces between the lower side of the tongue and the upper side of the lower lip are situated substantially, and even entirely, on the protruding part of the lower lip, namely on that part of the lower lip which extends beyond the distal end of the upper lip; preferably, in the coupled condition there is a space between the lower side of the tongue and the upper side of the lower lip, wherein this space preferably extends horizontally underneath the tongue at least from on the tip of the tongue to beyond the distal end of the upper lip; in this manner, the risk of breaking of the tongue when turning the tongue into the groove is minimized, whereas still a sufficient vertical locking is obtained (see RICK at lines 25-34, p. 9). Additionally RICK teaches that the length L2 of the protruding part 48 of the lower lip 13 is at least 80% of the thickness T1 of the mineral-based board material 4 (see RICK at lines 26-28, p. 16; and Fig. 7).
RICK teaches that Figure 7 represents a variant, wherein the coupling means 9, for example, the coupling means 9 of the long opposite edges 5-6, show some preferred characteristics, which each separately or in any combination offer an edge profile which is ideally suited for being applied in a floor panel 1 with a core 2 of mineral- based board material 4, such as a magnesium oxide-based board material (see RICK at lines 5-8, p. 16), and CAUWENBERGE discloses that in general, laminate panels according to the present invention may be combined with all types of known locking systems (see CAUWENBERGE at paragraph [0044] and Fig. 1-4). Furthermore, according to MPEP § 2144.06(I), "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). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the board of CAUWENBERGE by including the tongue-and-groove configuration wherein the difference between the upper and the lower lip of the lips which border the groove, measured in the plane of the panel and perpendicular to the longitudinal direction of the groove, being smaller a total thickness of the panel, e.g., at least 80%, as disclosed by RICK based on teachings of RICK describing that ; in this manner, the risk of breaking of the tongue when turning the tongue into the groove is minimized, whereas still a sufficient vertical locking is obtained (see RICK at lines 25-34, p. 9).
CAUWENBERGE fails to teach the board being treated with a sealant at at least one edge or at least two opposite edges.
However, CAPPELLE discloses a floor panel having two opposite edges including coupling parts with a configuration that allows the coupling parts to be brought into each other by a downward movement; the coupling parts allow locking in the plane of the panels and perpendicular to the edges by way of locking parts in the form of hook-shaped parts (see CAPPELLE at Abstract). CAPPELLE teaches that preferably, on the respective edge by means of the synthetic edge part a water-repellent or waterproofing protection of the core material is realized; and that said synthetic material of the edge part relates to a thermo-hardening synthetic material, for example, a material on the basis of polyurea, epoxy or polyurethane (see CAPPELLE at Col. 5, lines 51-67; and Fig. 7: FIG. 12 represents coupling means 39-40 provided with such sealing covering layer 47: for the water-repellent substance, polyurethane-based hot-melt glue is used).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the potential benefit of improving the board of CAUWENBERGE by applying a polyurethane-based sealant to the edge as disclosed by CAPPELLE since CAPPELLE explicitly teaches the use of a sealant for water-repellant or waterproofing protection (see CAPPELLE at Col. 5, lines 51-67).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the board of CAUWENBERGE by applying a polyurethane-based sealant to the edge as disclosed by CAPPELLE in order to provide waterproofing protection.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to amended claim 6 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
In response to Applicant’s arguments that CAUWENBERGE does not concern the structural mineral board recited by amended claim 6, but instead concerns drying of a magnesium oxide board used as a melamine-impregnated surface layer; and that CAUWENBERGE not only fails to disclose the presently claimed residual moisture content range for the mineral board itself, but affirmatively teaches significantly higher moisture contents than those presently claimed (see Remarks received on 05/27/2026 spanning paragraphs on page 11), it is noted that, as set forth, claim 6 merely states “wherein the mineral board has a residual moisture content of 7% or below”. Since according to MPEP § 2111, the proper claim interpretation includes giving claims their broadest reasonable interpretation, the examiner treats the disclosure of CAUWENBERGE describing that “the magnesium oxide board is preferably dried … to lower its water content to between 5% and 9%” (see CAUWENBERGE at paragraph [0011]) as reading on the aforementioned limitation of claim 6.
In response to Applicant arguments that CAUWENBERGE and FANG fail to teach or suggest the newly added coupling-geometry limitations, it is noted that the rejection of the added limitation in view of RICK has been discussed above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANASTASIA KUVAYSKAYA whose telephone number is (703)756-5437. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:00am-5:00pm.
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, Amber Orlando can be reached at 571-270-3149. 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.
/A.A.K./Examiner, Art Unit 1731
/ANTHONY J GREEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1731
Prosecution Insights