DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
In response to the amendment received on 01/26/2026:
claims 1-15 are currently pending
claims 1-5 are withdrawn from consideration
claims 6, 10-12 and 14-15 are amended
previously presented 112b rejections are withdrawn in light of the amendment to the claims
new prior art grounds of rejection applying Cauwenberge, Fang, Sherman, Boucke 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 and 13 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.
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 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).
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.
Regarding claim 7, CAUWENBERGE as modified by FANG 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 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 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 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 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 on the one hand a melamine formaldehyde resin and on the other hand 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.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CAUWENBERGE in view of FANG 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 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 as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Boucke et al. (WO 2020114645 A1), hereinafter referred to as BOUCKE.
Regarding claim 13, CAUWENBERGE as modified by FANG 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 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 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 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 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 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)).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/26/20206 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the present claim does not focus on the coated panel itself but on the technical effect resulting from and caused by the claimed manufacturing steps; and that CAUWENBERGE does not disclose, suggest, or recognize flexibility as a technical goal of the board-forming process, nor does it consider selecting reinforcement materials with regard to later manufacturing steps such as deformation or precise machining of coupling parts (see Remarks received on 01/26/2026 spanning paragraphs on pages 7-8).
However, the examiner respectfully disagrees for the following reasons. As set forth, claim 6 does not recite the technical effect resulting from and caused by the claimed manufacturing steps, but claims method steps including the step of providing a single-layered board comprising MOC or MOS, the step of providing the board with a decorative layer, by means of a press operation wherein a melamine treated paper is heat pressed to said board, wherein the coated panel is provided at 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. As was discussed in the rejection of claim 6 above, CAUWENBERGE also discloses a laminate panel for flooring system comprising a fire-proof core layer comprising magnesium oxide disposed between a surface layer such as a decorative layer at the upper side of said core layer and a backing layer at the underside of said core layer, at least one pair of opposing edges of the core layer being profiled to represent a groove and tongue, the tongue having a configuration corresponding to the groove so that several panels can be mutually interlocked in the vertical or horizontal direction in relation to one another (see CAUWENBERGE at paragraph [0004]). Therefore, CAUWENBERGE discloses the method of manufacturing a panel comprising the steps claimed by the Applicant. Regarding arguments about CAUWENBERGE failing to address flexibility, deformation and precise machining of coupling parts, it is noted that the features upon which Applicant relies are not recited in the rejected claims.
In response to the Applicant argument that CAUWENBERGE does not disclose a mineral board containing wood fibers (see Remarks received on 01/26/2026 spanning paragraphs on pages 8-10), it is noted, that while CAUWENBERGE discloses that a particular suitable reinforcement for strengthening the core layer may be fiberglass fibre in any suitable arrangement, ordered or not (see CAUWENBERGE at paragraph [0024]) and provides a typical core layer composition comprising fiberglass (see CAUWENBERGE at Table 1), CAUWENBERGE also states that disclosed examples are to be taken as informative and are in no way limitative (see CAUWENBERGE at paragraph [0054]). Moreover, CAUWENBERGE discloses the composition can be reinforced with a strengthening material (see CAUWENBERGE at paragraph [0023]); and according to MPEP §2123(I): “A reference may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art, including nonpreferred embodiments. Merck & Co. v. Biocraft Labs., Inc. 874 F.2d 804, 10 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed. Cir. 1989), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 975 (1989)”. Thus, as was discussed in the rejection of claim 6 above, the disclosure of FANG explicitly teaching that the wood chips can 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]), would provide the motivation for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the core layer of CAUWENBERGE by including wood chips.
In response to Applicant argument that coupling parts formed at panel edges often include regions that must resist deformation during installation, such as elastically bendable lips in tongue-and-grove systems, and by adding wood fibers into the MgO board material during manufacturing the board better withstands deformation (see Remarks received on 01/26/2026 at paragraphs on page 9), it is noted that the present application claims the coated panel provided at 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. As set forth, the aforementioned deformation resistance of elastically bendable lips in tongue-and-grove systems is not claimed in the rejected claims. Moreover, CAUWENBERGE’s disclosure describing that 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 (see CAUWENBERGE at Fig. 4 and paragraph [0044]), reads on limitations of claim 6.
Applicant argues that CAUWENBERGE does not disclose a manufacturing method that creates a single-layer mineral board (see Remarks received on 01/26/2026 spanning paragraphs on page 8).
However, the examiner respectfully disagrees for the following reasons. CAUWENBERGE’s disclosure describes the core layer comprising a composition derived from a colloidal system of magnesium oxide, magnesium chloride and water and further comprising a strengthening material; a particular suitable reinforcement for strength of the core layer may be fiberglass fibres in any suitable arrangement, ordered or not (see CAUWENBERGE at paragraph [0023-24]). Based on the aforementioned disclosure of CAUWENBERGE, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that incorporation of fibres in a disordered arrangement into a colloidal system would result in formation of a single-layered board. Furthermore, CAUWENBERGE refers to a core layer throughout the disclosure. In response to Applicant’s argument that the references fail to show certain features of Applicant’s invention, it is noted that the feature upon which Applicant relies (i.e., homogeneous, single-layer board made from a uniform material) is not recited in the rejected claim.
Applicant argues that CAUWENBERGE fails to teach homogeneous, single-layer board made from a uniform material comprising the wood fibers; and that including wood fibers in the MgO board during manufacturing improves machining when shaping coupling parts and that “the higher cellulose content … may give rise to a smoother, potentially more accurately performed, surface upon milling or otherwise providing said coupling parts” (Specification, paragraph [056]) (see Remarks received on 01/26/2026 at spanning paragraphs on pages 9-10). In response, the examiner would like to point out that paragraph [056] states: “The higher cellulose content in the outer and intermediate layer may give raise to a smoother, potentially more accurately performed, surface upon milling or otherwise providing said coupling parts. The provision of one or more of said contact surfaces in a layer of higher cellulose content may hence lead to a more accurate coupling, i.e., with no or minor height differences, and/or free from play, or practically free from play”. Moreover, the preceding paragraph [055] of Specification discloses that the aforementioned outer and intermediate layers are part of a multilayered board (a three layer board or a five layer board). According to MPEP §2141.03(I) “the level of disclosure in the specification of the application under examination or in relevant references may also be informative of the knowledge and skills of a person of ordinary skill in the art”, therefore, in light of the disclosure in the Specification provided by the Applicant, the examiner asserts that one of ordinary skill in the art would have anticipated a smoother, potentially more accurately performed, surface upon milling or otherwise providing said coupling parts when using the multilayer board comprising different amounts of cellulose as disclosed by the Applicant (see Specification, paragraphs [055-56]), and not a homogeneous, single-layer board made from a uniform material, as set forth in amended claim 6.
It is also noted, that the argument regarding improving manufacturability, machining reliability, and resistance to damage during coupling-part formation are not commensurate in scope with the claimed invention.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 6, 12-13 and 15 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over FANG 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.
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 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