DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
Applicant's amendment filed June 3rd, 2026 has been entered. Claim 15 has been amended.
The Section 102/103 rejections over Osumi (as the primary reference) made in the Office action mailed April 1st, 2026 have been withdrawn due to Applicant’s amendment.
The Section 103 rejections over Bergelin as the primary reference made in the Office action mailed April 1st, 2026 have been withdrawn due to Applicant’s amendment.
The Section 103 rejections over Tanaka as the primary reference made in the Office action mailed April 1st, 2026 have been maintained due to Applicant’s arguments being unpersuasive.
The Section 103 rejections over Kalwa as the primary reference made in the Office action mailed April 1st, 2026 have been maintained due to Applicant’s arguments being unpersuasive.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed June 3rd, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the rejections in view of Tanaka as the primary reference, Applicant argues each of the references separately when they are rejected in combination with each other.
One cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Also, both of the references, Tanaka and Kalwa substantially teach the invention as claimed.
Tanaka substantially teaches the invention as claimed with the continuous uppermost/second wood veneer having a plurality of openings and a continuous first/lower layer, such paper but not limited thereto, adhesively laminated thereto in such a manner so as to deform under lamination pressure into the openings, the first/lower layer being further adhesively laminated to a core layer by an urea-based adhesive/binder layer. The only features not taught are that the first layer is also a wood veneer and that the adhesive/binder layer comprises fillers.
For instance, while, yes, Morizaki teaches the insertion of dissimilar, discrete wood inlays into a continuous veneer, unlike the primary reference/currently claimed invention. However, the reference is used as teaching reference, and therefore, it is not necessary for this secondary reference to contain all the features of the presently claimed invention, In re Nievelt, 482 F.2d 965, 179 USPQ 224, 226 (CCPA 1973), In re Keller 624 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871, 881 (CCPA 1981). Rather this reference teaches a certain concept, namely, that dissimilar wood veneer inlays are improved over paper-based inlays.
Endo further builds upon/teaches that inserted inlays of the prior art are inferior to placing a continuous lower decorative layer under an upper decorative layer having an opening and deforming the continuous lower decorative layer thereinto due to the increased steps required and possible differences in height and/or gaps, wherein the upper layer and the lower layer may be different in material or may both be wood (veneers) having different grain directions.
Finally, Wani teaches how forming a deformed lower layer such that a step/difference in height is not formed between an upper wood layer and lower would comprise different compressive and/or flexural properties such that it is able to deform and/or bend to yield a distance of about the thickness of the first layer upon application of pressure, wherein the more deformable lower layer may comprise paper-based materials or semi-rigid/flexible wood veneer.
Therefore, one of ordinary skill would have understood based on the prior art as set forth that paper-based inlays were not preferred over wood inlays [Morizaki], wherein using a lower deformable wood inlay [Endo] or layer [Wani] is known, wherein deforming a continuous layer into an opening formed in the upper layer exposing the lower layer (regardless of when the opening was formed, which does not matter to the product claim) and would be improved over inserting discrete wood inlays [Endo], wherein the lower wood layer could be chosen in relation to known mechanical properties such that it is softer and/or more flexible than the upper wood layer [Wani]. While the Examiner could have probably just used Endo and/or Wani to teach in using a lower decorative wood veneer layer having a different grain [Endo] or provided a flexible/semi-rigid paper equivalent [Wani], the Examiner preferred the combination above to demonstrate the paper inlay Tanaka would have been sought to have been replaced by a wood veneer layer. Each of the references supports the other an interlocked combination that when viewed as a whole, makes obvious and motivates replacing the paper inlay layer of Tanaka with a deformable first/lower wood veneer inlay layer disposed between the continuous second/upper veneer having at least one opening and a core layer.
Lastly, the obvious and motivated first/lower veneer layer of Tanaka/Morizaki/Endo/Wani is not taught to be adhered to the core with the binder layer having a filler as claimed. Schute teaches this feature for a urea-based adhesive for adhering a veneer to a core layer, wherein fillers can comprise colorants for aesthetic reasons (wherein the first/lower wood veneer would be exposed and visible through the one or more openings), for viscosity control and optimization purposes such that the adhesive resin cannot over penetrate the wood veneer through an pores/gaps (which are not considered openings, such as those set forth in Tanaka, as argued by Applicant) preserving the natural wood surface (again visible through the inlaid portions).
Applicant attempts a similar argument for the rejection over Kalwa, wherein Kalwa teaches the invention substantially as claimed, except that the openings formed in the second/uppermost wood veneer layer to expose the first/lower wood veneer layer are not stated to be at least partially filled by the first/lower wood veneer layer.
The Examiner similarly uses Endo and Wani as recited above, optionally including Osumi evidentiary/further teaching purposes that one can deform a lower wood veneer into open areas of an upper wood layer, in a multilayered wood set-up via only lamination pressure.
Furthermore, the technique of laminating layers such that one is deformed into openings in the upper layer is well-known in the design art, such as set forth in Levy (FR 2387708 A1) among many others, wherein Applicant’s invention only substantially differs in that wood veneers are used for both layers.
But even this is well-known in the veneer art as Hamada et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2016/0089850 A1), which teaches an uppermost wood veneer layer having an open structure/inlay pattern for a decorative layer, which while not limited is taught to be a metal material, but further teaches that this material can be backed by a deformable inner wood veneer layer [0059], wherein this process is improved over superimposing/stacking layers that have openings that merely expose the lower layer defining a monotonous flatness and inserted discrete inlays which have design tolerance issues such as useless gaps [0005-0008, 0051], whereas the invented deformed-inlay method forms a gap-less flush, smooth surface [0035, 0047]. Furthermore, Kessler (U.S. Patent No. 2,545,286) teaches providing an upper wood layer having a decorative opening wherein a lower metal foil is deformed into the opening upon being pressed against a core wood laminate (col. 2, lines 8-17) forming an inlaid artistic design that sharply delineated is simple, economical, speedy, and results in an extremely satisfactory, strong, and artistic product (col. 1, lines 5-14), wherein the metal foil may be replaced by a plastic sheet or a thin sheet of wood of contrasting color or grain (col. 2, line 55 – col. 3, line 3).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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) in the continuous veneer, 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. 103 as being unpatentable over Kalwa (U.S. Pub. No. 2022/0016872 A1) (hereinafter “Kalwa”) 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].
The first veneer is not taught to be at least partially filling the at least one open structure of formed in a continuous 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.
Claims 15 & 17-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kalwa (U.S. Pub. No. 2022/0016872 A1) (hereinafter “Kalwa”) in view of Hamada et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2016/0089850 A1) (hereinafter “Hamada”) and Kessler (U.S. Patent No. 2,545,286);
wherein claims 17-18 are optionally further in view of Wani et al. (WO 2006/091532 A1) (hereinafter “Wani”) and claims 19-20 are optionally further in view of Visser (A Guide to Veneers) (hereinafter “Visser”).
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].
The first veneer is not taught to be at least partially filling the at least one open structure of formed in a continuous second veneer.
Hamada teaches an uppermost wood veneer layer having an open structure/inlay pattern for a decorative layer, which while not limited is taught to be a metal material, but further teaches that this material can be backed by a deformable inner wood veneer layer [0059], wherein this process is improved over superimposing/stacking layers that have openings that merely expose the lower layer defining a monotonous flatness and inserted discrete inlays which have design tolerance issues such as useless gaps [0005-0008, 0051], whereas the invented deformed-inlay method forms a gap-less flush, smooth surface [0035, 0047].
Furthermore, Kessler teaches providing an upper wood layer having a decorative opening wherein a lower metal foil is deformed into the opening upon being pressed against a core wood laminate (col. 2, lines 8-17) forming an inlaid artistic design that sharply delineated is simple, economical, speedy, and results in an extremely satisfactory, strong, and artistic product (col. 1, lines 5-14), wherein the metal foil may be replaced by a plastic sheet or a thin sheet of wood of contrasting color or grain (col. 2, line 55 – col. 3, line 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to provide the first veneer layer as at least partially filling the open structure formed in a continuous layer. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to provide a flush, smooth structure with no useless gaps [Hamada], wherein the contrasting color and/or grain lower thin, deformable wood layer can provide a sharply delineated, strong, and artistic product [Kessler], wherein one could have replaced the metal layer with a thin wood layer or merely used the inner/lower wood veneer layer of Hamada as a decorative layer.
Regarding claims 17-18 and 21-22, Kalwa teaches veneers typically have a typical 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 second layer can be a cost-effective popular veneer of 1.5 mm thickness before pressing [0007], wherein a cost-effective veneer is also birch veneer in comparison to a 0.5 mm mahogany veneer [0038-0039], wherein in the event that the thickness of the first/lower veneer layer or the total veneer laminate is not taught:
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 to at the time of invention to provide the first/lower layer and overall laminate thickness within the range claimed. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to provide a veneer within the typical range [Kalwa], wherein a lighter veneer would have been lower cost [Kalwa] and easier to shape as required [Wani].
Regarding claims 19-20, Visser teaches information regarding various cuts and sliced oak veneers, wherein 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
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 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 September 5th, 2026
Prosecution Insights