DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 12/19/25. However, Examiner submits that no corresponding arguments were submitted with applicant’s traversal. As noted on pg. 3 of the restriction requirement of 12/9/25, if the reply does not distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election shall be treated as an election without traverse.
Claim 42 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 12/19/25.
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I in the reply filed on 12/19/25 is acknowledged.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-8, 10-12, 20, 28, 30, 33-34, 37 and 39 are objected to because of the following informalities:
With regard to claim 1: Lines 6-7 of the claim, it appears the limitation “said decorative layer” should be --said at least one decorative layer-- for consistency of the claim language.
With regard to claims 2-8, 10-12, 20, 28, 30, 33-34, 37 and 39: Line 1 of each claim, it appears the limitation “Panel” should be --The decorative panel-- for consistency of the claim language.
With regard to claim 2: Line 1 of the claim, it appears the limitation “at least one intermediate layer” should be --said at least one intermediate layer-- for consistency of the claim language.
With regard to claims 3 and 5-8: Lines 1-2 of the claim, It appears each instance of the limitation “at least one intermediate layer” should be --said at least one intermediate layer-- for consistency of the claim language.
With regard to claim 10: Lines 1-4 of the claim, It appears each instance of the limitation “at least one intermediate layer” should be --said at least one intermediate layer-- for consistency of the claim language.
With regard to claim 12: Line 2-3 of the claim, it appears the limitation “leather particles” should be --the leather particles-- for consistency of the claim language.
With regard to claim 20: Lines 1-3 of the claim, it appears each instance of the limitation “at least one intermediate layer” should be --said at least one intermediate layer-- for consistency of the claim language. Line 2 of the claim, it appears the limitation “natural fat” should be --the at least one natural fat-- for consistency of the claim language. Line 3 of the claim, it appears a comma should be placed before “wherein”. Line 4 of the claim, the limitation it appears the limitation “additive” should be --the at least one additive-- for consistency of the claim language.
With regard to claim 28: Line 1 of the claim, it appears “28” should be --Claim 28--. Line 3 of the claim, it appears the limitation “the primer” should be --the at least one primer layer-- for consistency of the claim language.
With regard to claim 30: Lines 1-3 of the claim, it appears that each instance the limitation “at least one decor image” should be --the at least one decor image-- for consistency of the claim language. Lines 2 and 4-5 of the claim, it appears each instance of the limitation “at least one intermediate layer” should be --the at least one intermediate layer-- for consistency of the claim language. Lines 3 and 5 of the claim, it appears each instance of the limitation “the decorative structure“ should be –the decorative top structure-- for consistency of the claim language. Line 5 of the claim, the limitation “at least one primer layer” should be --the at least one primer layer-- for consistency of the claim language. Further, the subject matter of “onto at least one primer layer of the decorative structure” is repeated twice in the claim.
With regard to claim 33: Lines 1-2 of the claim, it appears the limitation “at least one transparent and/or translucent protective layer” should be –the at least one transparent and/or translucent protective layer-- for consistency of the claim language.
With regard to claim 37: Lines 1-2 and 4 of the claim, it appears each instance of the limitation “at least one intermediate layer” should be --the at least one intermediate layer-- for consistency of the claim language.
With regard to claim 39: Line 2 of the claim, it appears the limitation “such panels” should be --such decorative panels-- for consistency of the claim language. Line 4 of the claim, is appears the limitation “the panel” should be --the decorative panel-- for consistency of the claim language.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-8, 10-12, 20, 28, 30, 33-34, 37, 39 and 41 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
With regard to claim 1: Lines 10 and 11 of the claim, the term "preferably" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the term are part of the claimed invention. Lines 12-13 of the claim, the limitation “said first coupling profile of an adjacent panel” lacks sufficient antecedent basis.
With regard to claim 37: Lines 2 and 4 of the claim, the term "preferably" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the term are part of the claimed invention. Lines 3 and 5 of the claim, the phrase "more preferably" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention.
With regard to claim 39: Lines 14 of the claim the limitation “the sideward tongue of the third coupling profile of an adjacent profile” lacks sufficient antecedent basis. Further, it’s unclear if the limitation “an adjacent profile” found in line 14 of the claim is referencing the previously recited adjacent panel of claim 1. Line 18 of the claim, it’s unclear if the limitation “two of such panels” is referencing the previously recited two of such panels found in line 2 of the claim. Lines 19 of the claim, the limitation “the sideward tongue of a first panel” lacks sufficient antecedent basis. Further, it’s unclear if the limitation “a first panel” is referencing one of the previously recited panels. Line 20 of the claim the limitation “the third groove of an adjacent, second panel” lacks sufficient antecedent basis. Further, it’s unclear if the limitation “an adjacent, second panel” is referencing one of the previously recited panels.
Claims 1-8, 10-12, 20, 28, 30, 33-34, 37, 39 and 41 are examined as best understood.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-8, 10, 20, 28, 30, 33-34, 37, 39 and 41 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barreto (US 2010/0186337 A1) in view of Lingg (US 2019/0085566 A1).
With regard to claim 1: Barreto discloses a decorative panel (100) (fig. 1), comprising:
a core (core board 110) provided with an upper side and a lower side (fig. 1; par. [0025]),
a decorative top structure (top coat of finish 116 and textured surface painted with a multi-coat system of colors, with fade resistant, non-toxic coatings) affixed, indirectly, on said upper side of the core (110) (fig. 1; par. [0028] and [0030]-[0031]), said decorative top structure comprising:
at least one decorative layer (textured surface painted with a multi-coat system of colors, with fade resistant, non-toxic coatings) forming at least one decor image (par. [0028]), and
at least one protective layer (top coat of finish 116) covering said at least one decorative layer (textured surface painted with a multi-coat system of colors, with fade resistant, non-toxic coatings) (fig. 1; par. [0030]-[0031]); and
at least one intermediate layer (leather layers 102 or 114) comprises non-human collagen (leather), wherein said at least one intermediate layer (102 or 114) is positioned underneath said decorative top structure (fig. 1; par. [0032]-[0033]). Examiner notes that references to leather are considered to be an animal-based leather as non-animal based leather are known to be distinctly referred to as “vegan leather” or “synthetic leather”. As defined by Dictionary.com, leather is “the skin of an animal, with the hair removed, prepared for use by tanning or a similar process designed to preserve it against decay and make it pliable or supple when dry.” As described on pg. 3, lines 8-10 of the original specification, “leather derived from animal mainly consists of collagen type I when hides are obtained from adult animals, and significant proportion of collagen types Ill and IV, together with collagen type I when skins are derived from young animals.”
Barreto further discloses a first panel edge comprises a first coupling profile (tongue), and a second panel edge, opposite to the first panel edge, comprises a second coupling profile (groove) being designed to engage interlockingly with a first coupling profile (tongue) of an adjacent panel, both in horizontal direction and in vertical direction (figs. 1 and 3-4; par. [0034] and [0037]).
Barreto does not disclose that the at least one protective layer is transparent and/or translucent.
However, Lingg discloses a decorative panel comprising at least one protective layer (top layer 24) made of acrylic that is transparent (par. [0014]-[0015], [0036] and [0045]; claim 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the decorative panel of Barreto to have each finish coating including the at least one protective layer be made of acrylic material that is transparent such as taught by Lingg in order to provide means of allowing viewability of the underlying design of the at least one décor image for a desired aesthetic.
With regard to claim 2: Barreto further discloses that the at least one intermediate layer (102) is affixed to the upper side of the core (110) (fig. 1; par. [0025]).
With regard to claim 4: Barreto discloses that the material (high-density fiberboard, plywood or natural wood) of the core (110) as such is free of non-human collagen (fig. 1; par. [0026]).
With regard to claim 5: Barreto discloses that at least one intermediate layer (102 or 114) and the core (110) are different panel layers (fig. 1).
With regard to claim 6: Barreto discloses that the at least one intermediate layer (102 or 114) is situated in between the decorative top structure (finish 116 and textured surface painted with a multi-coat system of colors, with fade resistant, non-toxic coatings) and the core (110) (fig. 1; par. [0028] and [0030]-[0031]).
With regard to claim 7: Barreto discloses that at least one intermediate layer (114) is affixed to the lower side of the core (110) (fig. 1; par. [0032]-[0033]).
With regard to claim 8: The at least one intermediate layer (102 or 114) of Barreto would comprise type I collagen fibers. As described on pg. 3, lines 8-10 of the original specification, “leather derived from animal mainly consists of collagen type I when hides are obtained from adult animals, and significant proportion of collagen types Ill and IV, together with collagen type I when skins are derived from young animals.” Accordingly, the at least one intermediate layer made of leather would comprise some degree of type I collagen fibers.
With regard to claim 10: Barreto discloses that the at least one intermediate layer (102) comprise a bonded leather (par. [0028]). A described in par. [0006] of Barreto, bonded leather comprises leather particles (considered functionally equivalent to fibers) bonded by means of a binding material.
Barreto does not disclose that the amount of binding material is situated between 10 and 40% by weight of the at least one intermediate layer.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp, as the selected option was one of a finite number of available amounts of the binding material by weight for securing the leather particles to one another to impart desired strength, flexibility and durability to the bonded leather. No new or unpredictable results would be obtained from modifying the bonded leather of the at least one intermediate layer to have the amount of binding material situated between 10 and 40% by weight of the at least one intermediate layer. Such a combination, to one of ordinary skill in the art, would have a reasonable expectation of success, and would be based on ordinary skill and common sense before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
With regard to claim 20: Examiner notes that at least one intermediate layer (102 or 114) made of leather would inherently comprise at least one natural fat and would comprise at least one additive as result of a tanning process when manufacturing the leather.
Barreto in view of Lingg does not disclose the amount of natural fat is situated between 5 and 25% by weight of the intermediate layer, wherein the amount of additive is situated between 5 and 20% by weight of the intermediate layer.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp, as the selected option was one of a finite number of available by weight values of the amount of natural fat and additive to impart the desired degree of softness, durability and stability to the bonded leather. No new or unpredictable results would be obtained from modifying the amount of the by weight values of the amount of natural fat and additive to impart the desired degree of softness, durability and stability to the bonded leather. Such a combination, to one of ordinary skill in the art, would have a reasonable expectation of success, and would be based on ordinary skill and common sense before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
With regard to claim 28: Barreto discloses that the decorative top structure (top coat of finish 116 and textured surface painted with a multi-coat system of colors, with fade resistant, non-toxic coatings) comprises at least one primer layer (one of the bottom coats of finish 116) applied onto the at least one intermediate layer (102).
Barreto as modified by Lingg discloses the at least one primer layer (one of the bottom coats of finish 116) comprises at least one acrylate (acrylic).
With regard to claim 30: Barreto discloses that the at least one decor image (textured surface painted with a multi-coat system of colors, with fade resistant, non-toxic coatings) is directly applied onto at least one intermediate layer (102) (par. [0028]).
The at least decor image being printed is considered a product by process limitation (emphasis added).
“[E]ven though 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 Marosi, 710 F.2d 799, 218 USPQ 289 (Fed. Cir. 1983) and In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 227 USPQ 964 (Fed. Cir. 1985). See also MPEP § 2113.
With regard to claim 33: Barreto discloses the at least one protective layer (top coat of finish 116) is formed by a top coating applied on top of at least one wear layer (one of the bottom coatings of finish 116) of the decorative top structure (par. [0030]).
Barreto as modified by Lingg discloses that at least one protective layer is transparent.
With regard to claim 34: Barreto discloses a top surface (106) of the decorative top structure (top coat of finish 116 and textured surface painted with a multi-coat system of colors, with fade resistant, non-toxic coatings) is provided with a texture wherein said texture is registered in line with the decor image (paint) of the decorative top structure (par. [0028]).
With regard to claim 37: Barreto discloses that the thickness (122) of the at least one intermediate (102) layer is 1mm (par. [0028])
Barreto does not disclose that the thickness of the at least one intermediate layer is between 0.75 and 0.95 mm.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp, as the selected option was one of a finite number of available thicknesses for provide a desired degree of strength, durability and flexibility. No new or unpredictable results would be obtained from modifying the at least one intermediate layer to be between 0.75 and 0.95 mm. Such a combination, to one of ordinary skill in the art, would have a reasonable expectation of success, and would be based on ordinary skill and common sense before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
With regard to claim 39: Barreto disclose that the first coupling profile (tongue) and the second coupling profile (groove) are configured such that two of such panels can be coupled to each other by means of a lowering movement and/or by means of a turning movement (fig. 1; par. [0034]).
With regard to claim 41: Figs. 1 and 3-4 of Barreto discloses a decorative panel covering, comprising a plurality of decorative panels. Barreto as modified by Lingg discloses the decorative panel covering, comprising the plurality of decorative panels, according to claim 1.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barreto (US 2010/0186337 A1) in view of Lingg (US 2019/0085566 A1), Van Vlassenrode et al. (US 2019/0211571 A1) and in further view of Seiji (JP 2004-142181 A).
With regard to claim 3: Barreto discloses that the at least one intermediate layer (102) comprise a bonded leather (par. [0028]). A described in par. [0006] of Barreto, bonded leather comprises leather particles (considered functionally equivalent to fibers) bonded by means of a binding material.
Barreto in view of Lingg does not disclose that the at least one intermediate layer is embedded in the core.
However, Van Vlassenrode et al. discloses floor board having a reinforcing layer (20) comprising fibers embedded in the core (15A and 15B) (fig. 2; par. [0150]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the decorative panel of Barreto previously modified by Lingg to include a reinforcing layer comprising fibers embedded in the core such as taught by Van Vlassenrode et al. for increased strength and durability of the decorative panel.
Barreto in view Lingg and Van Vlassenrode et al. does not disclose that the at least one intermediate layer embedded in the core is non-human collagen.
However, Seiji discloses a filler for a resin layer comprising natural collagen particles (par. [0068]-[0069]), which are considered functionally to fibers.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the decorative panel of Barreto previously modified by Lingg and Van Vlassenrode et al. to form the reinforcement layer out of a known material comprising fibers made of collagen such as taught by Seiji in order to provide a known reinforcement (filler) material for desired physical properties such as strength and durability. No new or unpredictable results would be obtained from modifying the fibers to be made of collagen. Further, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to source the collagen from a non-human sources for ease of availability and access. Such a combination, to one of ordinary skill in the art, would have a reasonable expectation of success, and would be based on ordinary skill and common sense before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 11-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barreto (US 2010/0186337 A1) in view of Lingg (US 2019/0085566 A1) and in further view of Furniture Today (NPL document: https://www.furnituretoday.com/business-news/bonded-leather-making-inroads/).
With regard to claim 11: Barreto in view of Lingg does not disclose that said binding material comprises natural rubber or polyurethane.
However, Furniture Today discloses bonded leather comprising leather particles (fragments and fibers) secured to a carrier layer (backing) via a binding material, said binding material being polyurethane (pg. 2, 2nd paragraph and pg. 3, 8th paragraph).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the decorative panel of Barreto previously modified by Lingg to have the binding material of the bonded leather of the at least one intermediate layer be polyurethane such as taught by Furniture Today in order to provide a known binding material allowing for durability, flexibility and uniform finish of the bonded leather.
With regard to claim 12: Barreto in view of Lingg does not disclose that said at least one intermediate layer comprises a layered structure of a carrier layer onto which the leather particles are bonded by means of said binding material.
However, Furniture Today discloses bonded leather comprising leather particles (fragments and fibers) secured to a carrier layer (backing) via a binding material, said binding material being polyurethane (pg. 2, 2nd paragraph and pg. 3, 8th paragraph).
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the decorative panel of Barreto previously modified by Lingg to have the bonded leather of the at least one intermediate layer comprise a layered structure of a carrier layer onto which leather particles are bonded by means of the binding material such as taught by Furniture Today in order to provide a system having a substrate for supporting the leather particles before and after curing of the binding material.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The prior art cited is directed to flooring panels.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JESSIE T FONSECA whose telephone number is (571)272-7195. The examiner can normally be reached 7:00am - 3:30pm.
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, Brian Glessner can be reached at (571)272-6754. 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.
/JESSIE T FONSECA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3633