DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
Applicant's amendment filed February 10th, 2026 has been entered. Claim 1 and 15 have been amended. Claims 2 and 16 have been cancelled.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group II, claims 15-22, in the reply filed on February 10th, 2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the common technical feature of Groups I & II is not inventive over the prior art. This is not found persuasive for at least the following reasons:
Osumi (JP 02-196654 A) teaches a veneered panel comprising a core comprising a plurality of prepregs (All Figs. [4a]) comprising a surface decorative material (All Figs. [1]) such as a first wood veneer adhesively adhered (binder layer) to the prepregs, an inlay material (All Figs. [2]) having an open structure and comprising a second wood (veneer) adhered to the surface decorative material (pgs. 2-3), such that upon pressing the surface decorative material deforms into the open structure defined by the inlay material (pg. 6), wherein a specific example (Example 1) comprises a 0.25 mm thick black walnut veneer as the surface decorative material having an adhesive impregnated nonwoven fabric (binder with filler) and the inlay comprises a maple veneer (pgs. 6-7).
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 15 & 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Osumi (JP 02-196654 A) (hereinafter “Osumi”).
Regarding claims 15 and 17, Osumi teaches a veneered panel comprising a core comprising a plurality of prepregs (All Figs. [4a]) comprising a surface decorative material (All Figs. [1]) such as a first wood veneer adhesively adhered (binder layer) to the prepregs, an inlay material (All Figs. [2]) having an open structure and comprising a second wood (veneer) adhered to the surface decorative material (pgs. 2-3), such that upon pressing the surface decorative material deforms into and fills the open structure defined by the inlay material (pg. 6), wherein a specific example (Example 1) comprises a 0.25 mm thick black walnut veneer as the surface decorative material having an adhesive impregnated nonwoven fabric (binder with filler) and the inlay comprises a maple veneer (pgs. 6-7) in the shape of a floral pattern, wherein “when, as by a recitation of ranges or otherwise, a claim covers several compositions, the claim is anticipated if one of them is in the prior art" Titanium Metals Corp. v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985). See MPEP 2131.03 I.
Claims 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Osumi, as applied to claim 15 above, optionally in view of Snyder (U.S. Patent No. 6,004,648) (hereinafter “Snyder”).
Regarding claims 19-20, a method for forming the each of the veneers for the inlay (second veneer) and the surface decorative material (first veneer) are not taught.
Although product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). The burden has been shifted to Applicant to show unobvious difference between the claimed product and the prior art product. In re Marosi, 218 USPQ 289 (Fed. Cir. 1983). The applied prior art either anticipates or strongly suggests the claimed subject matter.
Alternatively, Snyder teaches a two-ply veneer for furniture and/or architecture comprising at least a substrate veneer ply and a veneer face ply, wherein each of the veneer plies are cut using a rotary cut (i.e. peeling method) or a plain, quarter, half round, rift cut slicing methods which are all well-known to one of ordinary skill in the art (col. 2, lines 36-44).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to provide either of the known slicing or peeling (rotary cut) methods for each of the two veneers. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to choose from a limited number of well-known methods all of which would anticipate (or make obvious) a claimed limitation for forming the veneers.
Claims 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Osumi, as applied to claim 15 above, optionally in view of Rakauskas (U.S. Patent No. 5,925,211) (hereinafter “Rakauskas”).
Regarding claims 21-22, Osumi does not teach the first or second veneers to be birch or oak. However, Osumi teaches exemplary wood types such as walnut, rose nut, teak, spruce, zelkova, or oak (pg. 3, 1st paragraph), wherein the given example comprises the first veneer as walnut and the second veneer as comprising maple as recited above, wherein oak would be chosen from the aforementioned list and birch is a well-known wood veneer material usable for furniture and/or architectural purposes.
Alternatively, Rakauskas teaches a layered veneered composite for furniture and/or architectural purposes comprising a core (All Figs. [16]) having a veneer sheet (All Figs. [16]) adhered thereto, wherein natural hardwood veneer, such as oak, is known, wherein typical woods used in veneers have included ash, birch, cherry, maple, oak, pine, popular, and walnut (col. 1, lines 20-30).
It would have been obvious to and motivated for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to look to the art for known woods to use as veneers.
Claims 15 & 17-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bergelin in view of Morizaki (JP 54-052715 A) (hereinafter “Morizaki”), Endo et al. (WO 2017/135078 A1) (hereinafter “Endo”), and Wani et al. (WO 2006/091532 A1) (hereinafter “Wani”).
Regarding claim 15, Bergelin teaches a veneered element for furniture and/or architecture [0137] comprising a core layer (All Figs. [1]) having thereon a (first) wood veneer layer (All Figs. [5]) that is bonded to the core layer by an adhesive (binder) layer (All Figs. [2/3]), wherein the adhesive comprises at least one filler such as pigments, anti-static agents, fillers having sound absorbing properties, and fillers being particles or fibres [0141-0145], wherein the wood veneer layer may be one or more veneer pieces that may or may not be overlapped [0147].
However, a (second) wood veneer arranged on and adhesively adhered to the first wood veneer is not taught.
Morizaki teaches a decorative inlaid veneer that allows for lamination to base materials, wherein the combination of a wood veneer having a first grain pattern and a plurality of cutouts and another wood veneer having a second grain pattern different from the first grain pattern that is fit into the plurality of cutouts, wherein the inlay comprising the second wood veneer is improved over the prior art of paper inlays, which has become a less used/common technique.
AND
Endo teaches an improvement on providing inserted inlay materials, similar to Morizaki, due to potential gaps between the patterned and nonpatterned areas, resulting in no or minimal steps or height differences resulting in excellent design aesthetics [pg. 1 – pg. 5, 1st paragraph] comprising providing an opening in an outer decorative surface material (Figs. 12-13 [11]) and deforming one or more decorative inlaid surface material (Figs. 12-13 [12]) thereinto under applied pressure, similar to Tanaka, wherein the outer layer and exposed decorative layer may be different in material or may be different in grain direction of wood materials [pg. 11, last paragraph] and can be adhesively bonded together [pg. 11, 2nd paragraph].
AND
Wani teaches a molded part comprising mixed surface materials selected from a broad range of materials, wherein one at least partially overlaps the other and upon applied pressure the top surface becomes substantially flush such that there is a smooth and aesthetically pleasing borderline or transition between the two or more materials with little to no height differential for an aesthetically pleasing material transition that resists delamination (pg. 4), wherein the surface materials are relatively thin and ranging in size from 0.1 to up to 6 mm, but in order to provide the most efficient use of materials and minimization of part thickness the materials are less than 3 mm, preferably less than 2 mm, more preferably less than 2 mm, and most preferably less than 1 mm, but in order to provide sufficient strength for handling and durability the thickness of the surface material should be at least 0.15 mm, preferably at least 0.2 mm, more preferably at least 0.3 mm, and most preferably at least 0.5 mm, wherein the second material that is located at least partially under the first comprises compressive and/or flexural properties such that the second material is able to deform and/or bend to yield a distance of about the thickness of the first layer upon the application of pressure, (pg. 5, line 24 – pg. 6, line 18), wherein semi-rigid to flexible wood-based materials and wood comprise, respectively, paper-based materials and wood veneer sheets including many known varieties of natural woods can range from rigid/semi-rigid to flexible and can include layers of different natural wood types (pg. 7, line 1 – pg. 8, line 13), wherein the backside of the first/upper surface material is adhesively bonded to the upper surface of the second material to provide a strong bond such that upon pressurization bubbles or discontinuities are not formed and noticeable delamination is prevented (pg. 9, line 23 – pg. 10, line 5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to provide a veneer pieces a first wood veneer layer having at least one open structure and a second veneer layer adhesively bonded thereto, such that the first veneer layer at least partially fills the open structure. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to provide a multipiece veneer inlaid design for aesthetic purposes [Morizaki] wherein the overlapped differing-grain, pressure-deformed exposed decorative layer prevents the formation of steps/gaps improving aesthetics and decreasing delamination [Endo] wherein choosing a deformable first wood veneer would have resulted in a first wood veneer that was more flexible and/or softer than the second wood veneer [Wani].
Regarding claims 17-18, the wood veneer layer comprises a thickness of 0.2 to 4 mm, such as 0.2 to 1 mm [0147], wherein an exemplary oak veneer layer comprises a thickness of 0.6 mm [0203], wherein it would have been obvious to use the teachings of Wani to provide a first wood veneer layer with a thickness between 0.15 and 3 mm, most preferably between 0.5 and 0.8 mm, for a combined thickness of less than 4 mm, preferably 1.1 to 1.4 mm (before pressing).
Regarding claims 19-20, a method for forming the each of the veneers for the first veneer and the second veneer are not taught.
Although product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). The burden has been shifted to Applicant to show unobvious difference between the claimed product and the prior art product. In re Marosi, 218 USPQ 289 (Fed. Cir. 1983). The applied prior art either anticipates or strongly suggests the claimed subject matter.
Regarding claim 21, the wood veneer layer comprised an oak veneer in an example [0203], wherein Wani teaches the other veneer layer could be chosen from a wide variety of wood veneers including birch.
Claims 19-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bergelin in view of Morizaki, Endo, and Wani, as applied to claim 15 above, further in view of States Industries (The Warmth and Beauty of Real Wood) (hereinafter “States”) and optionally Visser (A Guide to Veneers) (hereinafter “Visser”).
Morizaki demonstrates the wood veneer having the cutouts and providing most of the surface area as comprising a relatively parallel, linear grain pattern and the inlaid veneer as comprising a more random, curvilinear grain pattern. However, using the methods and materials as claimed is not taught.
States teaches veneer cutting methods, wherein the rotary cut method provides random grain patterns and is generally the least expensive cutting method and slicing methods, wherein one provides an easily matchable curvilinear grain patterns, similar to the veneer in Tanaka, that is the least expensive slicing method and the two others provide a very straight grain, similar to the veneer of Morizaki, with the rift cut slicing method often being used for oak.
Furthermore, Visser teaches similar information regarding the cuts and slicing oak veneers as States, but additional teaches that rotary cuts are typically only used with birch veneers [pg. 31] and that sliced oak and rotary cut birch are two of the more popular species based on durability, aesthetics, and economics [pg. 34]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to provide the first veneer as a rotary cut (birch) veneer and the second veneer as a sliced oak veneer. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to choose a veneer providing most of the surface area as an easily matchable veneer having straight linear or curvilinear patterns and the inlay veneer as a less expensive, more random patterned veneer.
Claims 15 & 17-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanaka (JP 52-087212 A) (hereinafter “Tanaka”) in view of Morizaki (JP 54-052715 A) (hereinafter “Morizaki”), Endo et al. (WO 2017/135078 A1) (hereinafter “Endo”), Wani et al. (WO 2006/091532 A1) (hereinafter “Wani”), AND Schulte (U.S. Pub. No. 2017/0120564 A1) (hereinafter “Schulte”).
Regarding claim 15, Tanaka teaches a wood veneer laminate comprising an inlaid surface pattern, wherein the wood veneer laminate comprises a base material (core) such as plywood or hardboard adhesively laminated with a base sheet such as paper or cloth having a given color which is adhesively laminated to a thin (second) wood veneer having a thickness of 1 mm or less and having a cut-out pattern (open structure), with an example comprising a 0.5 mm thickness, wherein upon heat-pressing the laminate, the base sheet at least partially fills and embeds into the cut-out pattern and the adhesive used for the laminations to the base material (first and second binder layers) and the thin wood veneer is a urea resin adhesive.
However, Tanaka does not teach the base sheet is a first wood veneer as claimed or that the binder layer(s) comprise(s) at least one filler.
Morizaki teaches a decorative inlaid veneer that allows for lamination to base materials, wherein the combination of a wood veneer having a first grain pattern and a plurality of cutouts and another wood veneer having a second grain pattern different from the first grain pattern that is fit into the plurality of cutouts, wherein the inlay comprising the second wood veneer is improved over the prior art of paper inlays, which has become a less used/common technique.
AND
Endo teaches an improvement on providing inserted inlay materials, similar to Morizaki, due to potential gaps between the patterned and nonpatterned areas, resulting in no or minimal steps or height differences resulting in excellent design aesthetics [pg. 1 – pg. 5, 1st paragraph] comprising providing an opening in an outer decorative surface material (Figs. 12-13 [11]) and deforming one or more decorative inlaid surface material (Figs. 12-13 [12]) thereinto under applied pressure, similar to Tanaka, wherein the outer layer and exposed decorative layer may be different in material or may be different in grain direction of wood materials [pg. 11, last paragraph].
AND
Wani teaches a molded part comprising mixed surface materials selected from a broad range of materials, wherein one at least partially overlaps the other and upon applied pressure the top surface becomes substantially flush such that there is a smooth and aesthetically pleasing borderline or transition between the two or more materials with little to no height differential for an aesthetically pleasing material transition that resists delamination (pg. 4), wherein the surface materials are relatively thin and ranging in size from 0.1 to up to 6 mm, but in order to provide the most efficient use of materials and minimization of part thickness the materials are less than 3 mm, preferably less than 2 mm, more preferably less than 2 mm, and most preferably less than 1 mm, but in order to provide sufficient strength for handling and durability the thickness of the surface material should be at least 0.15 mm, preferably at least 0.2 mm, more preferably at least 0.3 mm, and most preferably at least 0.5 mm, wherein the second material that is located at least partially under the first comprises compressive and/or flexural properties such that the second material is able to deform and/or bend to yield a distance of about the thickness of the first layer upon the application of pressure, (pg. 5, line 24 – pg. 6, line 18), wherein semi-rigid to flexible wood-based materials and wood comprise, respectively, paper-based materials and wood veneer sheets including many known varieties of natural woods can range from rigid/semi-rigid to flexible and can include layers of different natural wood types (pg. 7, line 1 – pg. 8, line 13), wherein the backside of the first/upper surface material is adhesively bonded to the upper surface of the second material to provide a strong bond such that upon pressurization bubbles or discontinuities are not formed and noticeable delamination is prevented (pg. 9, line 23 – pg. 10, line 5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to provide a first veneer layer arranged on adhesively bonded to the core/base material and arranged below and adhesively bonded to the second wood veneer having at least one open structure, such that the first veneer layer at least partially fills the open structure. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to provide an improved veneer inlaid design over a technique falling out of favor [Morizaki] wherein the overlapped differing-grain, pressure-deformed exposed decorative layer prevents the formation of steps/gaps improving aesthetics and decreasing delamination [Endo] wherein choosing a deformable first wood veneer would have resulted in a first wood veneer that was more flexible and/or softer than the second wood veneer [Wani].
Schulte teaches a veneered panel having base/core adhesively laminated to a veneer, wherein the adhesive resin preferably comprises a urea-based resin that may comprise colorants/pigments (fillers) such that the adhesive resin seen visible in the pores provides an aesthetically pleasing appearance with black (dyes/pigments) being regarded as universally advantageous and/or non-colorant fillers for viscosity control and optimization purposes and such that the resin cannot over penetrate (i.e. exit) the overlying wood veneer such that the natural wood surface remains preserved [0016-0020, 0028-0033].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to provide the urea-based adhesive layers with one or more colorant or non-colorant fillers. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to provide an aesthetically pleasing appearance, with black (dyes/pigments) being regarded as universally advantageous, and/or viscosity control and optimization purposes and such that the resin cannot over penetrate the overlying wood veneer such that the natural wood surface remains preserved [0016-0020, 0028-0033].
Regarding claims 17-18, Tanaka teaches that the second wood veneer layer as comprising a thickness, preferably below 1 mm, with an exemplary embodiment comprising a thickness of 0.5 mm, wherein it would have been obvious to use the teachings of Wani to provide a first wood veneer layer with a thickness between 0.15 and 3 mm, most preferably between 0.5 and 0.8 mm, for a combined thickness of less than 4 mm, preferably 1 to 1.3 mm (before pressing).
Regarding claims 19-20, a method for forming the each of the veneers for the first veneer and the second veneer are not taught.
Although product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). The burden has been shifted to Applicant to show unobvious difference between the claimed product and the prior art product. In re Marosi, 218 USPQ 289 (Fed. Cir. 1983). The applied prior art either anticipates or strongly suggests the claimed subject matter.
Regarding claims 21-22, Wani teaches a variety of known wood veneers including oak and birch (pg. 7, lines 25-27).
Claims 19-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanaka in view of Morizaki, Endo, Wani, and Schulte, as applied to claim 15 above, further in view of States Industries (The Warmth and Beauty of Real Wood) (hereinafter “States”) and optionally Visser (A Guide to Veneers) (hereinafter “Visser”).
Regarding claims 19-22, Tanaka demonstrates the second wood veneer as comprising a curvilinear pattern having all of the curves extending in the same direction. Morizaki demonstrates the wood veneer having the cutouts and providing most of the surface area as comprising a relatively parallel, linear grain pattern and the inlaid veneer as comprising a more random, curvilinear grain pattern. However, using the methods and materials as claimed is not taught.
States teaches veneer cutting methods, wherein the rotary cut method provides random grain patterns and is generally the least expensive cutting method and slicing methods, wherein one provides an easily matchable curvilinear grain patterns, similar to the veneer in Tanaka, that is the least expensive slicing method and the two others provide a very straight grain, similar to the veneer of Morizaki, with the rift cut slicing method often being used for oak.
Furthermore, Visser teaches similar information regarding the cuts and slicing oak veneers as States, but additional teaches that rotary cuts are typically only used with birch veneers [pg. 31] and that sliced oak and rotary cut birch are two of the more popular species based on durability, aesthetics, and economics [pg. 34]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to provide the first veneer as a rotary cut (birch) veneer and the second veneer as a sliced oak veneer. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to choose a veneer providing most of the surface area as an easily matchable veneer having straight linear or curvilinear patterns and the inlay veneer as a less expensive, more random patterned veneer.
Claims 15 & 17-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Kalwa (U.S. Pub. No. 2022/0016872 A1) (hereinafter “Kalwa”), or in the alternative obvious over Kalwa, optionally in view of Endo et al. (WO 2017/135078 A1) (hereinafter “Endo”), Wani et al. (WO 2006/091532 A1) (hereinafter “Wani”), and further optionally Tanaka (JP 52-087212 A) (hereinafter “Tanaka”).
Regarding claim 15, Kalwa teaches a veneered wooden material comprising a supporting plate (core) (All Figs. [2]) having arranged thereon a first veneer (All Figs. [5a]) having arranged thereon a second veneer (All Figs. [5b]), wherein the first veneer is adhered to the supporting plate via a glue synthetic resin (All Figs. [7]) and the second veneer is adhered to the first veneer via a glue synthetic resin (All Figs. [7]) (first/second binder layers), wherein the resin includes fillers such that the resin can be tinted (pigmented), additives to improve abrasion/scratching resistance, fibers for better layer formation [0016-0017], wherein the second veneer may comprise removed portions (at least one open structure) to expose the first veneer to create an inlaid effect [0008-0009], wherein the veneered material is compressed in a high pressure press such that the veneers are compressed to at least 30%, preferably at least 50% of their original thickness [0018-0020], wherein the lower first veneer is inherently or obviously at least partially pressed into/filling any openings formed in the second veneer.
In the event that the first veneer is not at least not inherently or obviously at least partially filling the at least one open structure of the second veneer:
Endo teaches an improvement on providing inserted inlay materials, similar to Morizaki, due to potential gaps between the patterned and nonpatterned areas, resulting in no or minimal steps or height differences resulting in excellent design aesthetics [pg. 1 – pg. 5, 1st paragraph] comprising providing an opening in an outer decorative surface material (Figs. 12-13 [11]) and deforming one or more decorative inlaid surface material (Figs. 12-13 [12]) thereinto under applied pressure, similar to Tanaka, wherein the outer layer and exposed decorative layer may be different in material or may be different in grain direction of wood materials [pg. 11, last paragraph].
AND
Wani teaches a molded part comprising mixed surface materials selected from a broad range of materials, wherein one at least partially overlaps the other and upon applied pressure the top surface becomes substantially flush such that there is a smooth and aesthetically pleasing borderline or transition between the two or more materials with little to no height differential for an aesthetically pleasing material transition that resists delamination (pg. 4), wherein the surface materials are relatively thin and ranging in size from 0.1 to up to 6 mm, but in order to provide the most efficient use of materials and minimization of part thickness the materials are less than 3 mm, preferably less than 2 mm, more preferably less than 2 mm, and most preferably less than 1 mm, but in order to provide sufficient strength for handling and durability the thickness of the surface material should be at least 0.15 mm, preferably at least 0.2 mm, more preferably at least 0.3 mm, and most preferably at least 0.5 mm, wherein the second material that is located at least partially under the first comprises compressive and/or flexural properties such that the second material is able to deform and/or bend to yield a distance of about the thickness of the first layer upon the application of pressure, (pg. 5, line 24 – pg. 6, line 18), wherein semi-rigid to flexible wood-based materials and wood comprise, respectively, paper-based materials and wood veneer sheets including many known varieties of natural woods can range from rigid/semi-rigid to flexible and can include layers of different natural wood types (pg. 7, line 1 – pg. 8, line 13), wherein the backside of the first/upper surface material is adhesively bonded to the upper surface of the second material to provide a strong bond such that upon pressurization bubbles or discontinuities are not formed and noticeable delamination is prevented (pg. 9, line 23 – pg. 10, line 5).
While Endo and Wani both use injection molding to provide pressure, Tanaka teaches that this lower layer deforming pressure can be provided via heat-pressing a veneer laminate.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to provide a first veneer layer arranged on adhesively bonded to the core/base material and arranged below and adhesively bonded to the second wood veneer having at least one open structure, such that the first veneer layer at least partially fills the open structure. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to provide a pressure-deformed exposed decorative layer to prevent the formation of steps/gaps improving aesthetics and decreasing delamination [Endo] wherein choosing a deformable first wood veneer would have resulted in a first wood veneer that was more flexible and/or softer than the second wood veneer [Wani].
Regarding claims 17-18 and 21-22, veneers typically have a thickness of 0.8 mm to 2.5 mm [0002], wherein the first oak layer may comprise a 0.6 mm thin oak veneer and a cost-effective popular veneer of 1.5 mm thickness [0007], wherein a cost-effective veneer is also birch veneer in comparison to a 0.5 mm mahogany veneer [0038-0039], wherein it would have been obvious to use the teachings of Wani to provide the first wood veneer layer with a thickness between 0.15 and 3 mm, most preferably between 0.5 and 0.8 mm, for a combined thickness of less than 4 mm, most preferably 1.0 to 1.3 mm (before pressing).
Regarding claims 19-20, a method for forming the each of the veneers for the first veneer and the second veneer are not taught.
Although product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). The burden has been shifted to Applicant to show unobvious difference between the claimed product and the prior art product. In re Marosi, 218 USPQ 289 (Fed. Cir. 1983). The applied prior art either anticipates or strongly suggests the claimed subject matter.
Claims 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kalwa in view of Morizaki, Endo, and optionally Scholz OR Tanaka, as applied to claim 15 above, optionally further in view of Visser (A Guide to Veneers) (hereinafter “Visser”).
Regarding claims 19-20, Visser teaches similar information regarding the cuts and slicing oak veneers as States, but additional teaches that rotary cuts are typically only used with birch veneers [pg. 31] and that sliced oak and rotary cut birch are two of the more popular species based on durability, aesthetics, and economics [pg. 34].
It would have been obvious to and motivated for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to provide a cost-effective exposed first veneer as a rotary cut birch veneer and a second relatively more expensive veneer as a sliced oak veneer.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure:
Yoneyama et al. (JP 2003-326897 A) teach a method for forming an inlaid decorative surface, wherein the surface decorative material comprising a plurality of window holes can a natural wood sheet [0008] and the inlaid member can be a natural wood or paper material [0009], wherein while an example is demonstrated as comprising separate inlaid members, each corresponding to a window opening (Figs. 1-3), similar to Morizaki, and an improvement allowing for complex inlaid patterns to be formed simultaneously comprises the inlaid members as a sheet like inlaid member (Fig. 4 [9]) adhesively bonded to the surface decorative material (Fig. 4 [8]) having window openings (Fig. 4 [8a]), and are fitted in a convex protrusion-like manner (Fig. 4 [9b]), similar to Tanaka, into the window openings for a firm integration with a more robust structure and improving work efficiency [0012-0014].
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to JEFFREY A VONCH whose telephone number is (571)270-1134. The Examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30-6:00.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, Applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the Examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner’s supervisor, Frank J Vineis can be reached at (571)270-1547. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JEFFREY A VONCH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1781 March 25th, 2026
Prosecution Insights