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 .
Summary
The Applicant’s arguments and claim amendments received on October 30, 2025 are entered into the file. Currently, claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 8, 9, 13, and 15-20 are amended; resulting in claims 1-20 pending for examination.
Information Disclosure Statement
As of the mailing date of this office action, there has been no information disclosure statement entered into the file. The Applicant is reminded of their duty to disclose. See MPEP 2001.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 17, and 18 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 1, in the newly added limitation, it is noted that the phrase “wherein the at least one decorative top structure comprises…” in line 11 is redundant in view of the limitation in line 7 reciting “the at least one decorative top structure comprising:”. It is suggested to amend the limitation in lines 7-10 to set forth that the at least one decorative top structure comprises at least one decorative print layer, at least one substantially transparent or translucent protective layer, and at least one back layer, wherein the at least one back layer comprises at least one primer layer and/or at least one white base layer as claimed.
With respect to the formatting of claim 1, MPEP 608.01(m) states that “Where a claim sets forth a plurality of elements or steps, each element or step of the claim should be separated by a line indentation.” See 37 CFR 1.75(i). It is suggested to format the claim with proper indentations in order to improve the clarity of the claim.
Regarding claims 17 and 18, it is suggested to amend the limitations reciting “wherein the densified wood comprises a density of” to --wherein the densified wood has a density of-- in order to clarify the language of the claims. It is noted that the term “comprises a density” implies that the densified wood is made up of or constituted by a density, whereas the phrase “has a density” conveys that the densified wood possesses the physical property of a certain density.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 11, the limitation reciting “wherein a part of the top surface of the at least one wood veneer layer is visible through the decorative top structure” is not adequately supported in combination with the newly added limitation in claim 1 reciting “wherein the at least one decorative top structure comprises at least one back layer, comprising at least one primer layer and/or at least one white base layer, applied on top of said at least one wood veneer layer, wherein the at least one decorative print layer is digitally printed onto said at least one back layer to improve adhesion and color authenticity.”
In particular, the instant specification does not appear to disclose an embodiment in which a part of the top surface of the wood veneer layer is visible through the decorative top structure when the decorative top structure includes a back layer which serves to improve adhesion and color authenticity of the decorative print layer. Rather, the back layer appears to be preferably formed as a white coating layer over the entire wood veneer layer in order to provide for a uniform light colored background for the decorative print layer. See, e.g., paragraph [0041] of the as-filed specification, where the decorative structure may further comprise at least one primer layer (back layer) situated between the core and the decorative print layer, where the primer may be white and has a surface density between 18 g/m2 and 26 g/m2. There is no disclosure of the back layer being a transparent layer through which a part of the wood veneer layer would be visible, and a transparent back layer would not be expected to exhibit the property of improving the color authenticity of the decorative print layer. In the case where the back layer is a white coating formed over the entire surface of the wood veneer layer, the wood veneer layer would not have any part that is visible through the decorative top structure.
There is also no disclosure in the specification of an embodiment in which the back layer is formed only in areas where the decorative print layer is formed, such that the areas left uncovered by the back layer and the decorative print layer would be areas where the wood veneer is visible through the decorative top structure. Rather, the primer layer is said to be applied, for example in an amount of 15 g/m2 to 30 g/m2, by a primer station (502), which is shown in Fig. 5 as a spray coating apparatus.
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 1-20 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.
Regarding claim 1, the limitation reciting “wherein the at least one decorative print layer is digitally printed onto said at least one back layer to improve adhesion and color authenticity” is indefinite because it is not clear what is meant by the phrase “to improve adhesion and color authenticity”.
Specifically, it is not clear whether this limitation is intended to require that the adhesion and color authenticity of the decorative panel or some component thereof is improved by digitally printing the decorative print layer, or if it is meant to require that the adhesion and color authenticity of the decorative print layer is improved due to the presence of the back layer. It is also not clear whether the term “improved” refers to an improvement as compared to the case where the back layer is not provided, or as compared to the case where the decorative print layer is applied by means other than digital printing, or if this refers to an improvement relative to some other comparative state.
In looking to paragraph [0027] of the as-filed specification, the decorative top structure is said to comprise at least one back layer, preferably at least one primer layer and/or at least one base layer, applied on top of said wood veneer layer, wherein the at least one decorative print layer is printed onto said base layer. This is said to not only improve the adhesion of the decorative ink of the decorative print layer to the wood veneer, but typically also improves the color authenticity of the decorative print layer [0027].
For the purpose of applying prior art, the aforementioned limitation will be interpreted in light of the specification to mean that the at least one decorative layer is digitally printed onto the at least one back layer, wherein the at least one back layer improves adhesion of the at least one decorative print layer to the at least one wood veneer layer and improves color authenticity of the at least one decorative print layer. In this interpretation, the phrases “improves adhesion of the at least one decorative print layer to the at least one wood veneer layer” and “improves color authenticity of the at least one decorative print layer” are functional limitations directed to the intended use of the back layer, which are interpreted as being satisfied by any back layer that is capable of performing in the manner claimed.
Regarding claims 2-20, the claims are rejected based on their dependency on claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-7, 11-14, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Inoue et al. (JP 2017-075495, machine translation previously provided) in view of Kalwa et al. (US 2015/0306888, newly cited).
Regarding claim 1, Inoue et al. teaches a wood-based decorative flooring material (1; decorative panel) comprising a wood-based substrate (2), an ink layer (3; decorative print layer), and a surface protective layer (4; transparent protective layer) ([0024], Figs. 1-2). The wood-based substrate (2) comprises a base member (21; core layer) made of plywood and a wood veneer layer formed of four veneers (23) attached to the surface of the base member with joints (24) formed between adjacent veneers ([0025], Fig. 1).
Inoue et al. teaches that the surface protective layer has light transmitting properties and may be made of a transparent resin so that the pattern of the ink layer printed on the wooden surface of the wood-based substrate can be visually recognized through the surface protective layer ([0010], [0045]-[0046]). Inoue et al. further teaches that the ink layer can be printed using an ink jet printer [0056]. As shown in Fig. 1, the wood veneer layer composed of veneers (23) is affixed directly onto a top surface of the base member (21), and the decorative top structure constituted by the ink layer (3) and surface protective layer (4) is applied directly onto a top surface of the veneers, where the surface protective layer covers the ink layer.
Although Inoue et al. teaches that the ink layer (3; decorative print layer) may be formed as a plurality of spaced apart ink particles (31) with exposed surfaces (2b) of the wood-based substrate (2) visible between the ink particles so that both the natural wood grain pattern from the veneer (23) and the wood grain pattern of the ink layer can be seen ([0040]-[0042], Fig. 3), or that the ink layer may be formed over the entire area of the wooden surface of the wood-based substrate so as to present a grain pattern different from the grain pattern of the veneer ([0038]), the reference does not expressly teach that a back layer comprising a primer layer and/or a white base layer is applied between the veneer and the ink layer.
However, in the analogous art of decorative wood flooring panels, Kalwa et al. teaches a method for producing high quality decorative prints on carrier materials having non-uniform lightness and/or color, such as wood veneers ([0022], [0025]). Kalwa et al. teaches that white primers may be applied to the carrier materials prior to the subsequent printing of light decorations, but that a low covering power of the primer may result in the carrier material showing through the decorative print ([0019]-[0021], [0023]). Kalwa et al. therefore teaches that a pigmented primer is applied in more than one layer (e.g., 3 to 10 layers), where titanium dioxide is preferably used as a white pigment due to its high covering power ([0040]-[0043]). Kalwa et al. further teaches that a layer of gray color primer may be applied to the wood carrier board before the application of one or more further pigmented primer layers of white color in order to achieve a higher opacity and homogeneity of primer on the wood carrier board, which leads to improved color agreement between the subsequently applied decoration over the entire board area ([0044]-[0046]). Kalwa et al. therefore teaches a primer (back layer) comprising at least one white primer (white base layer) and/or at least one gray primer (primer layer) which is applied on top of a wood veneer layer, where a decorative print layer is digitally printed onto the primer.
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 flooring material of Inoue et al. by applying the primer taught by Kalwa et al. onto the top surface of the veneer layer prior to application of the ink layer, in order to reduce color deviations in the decoration produced by the ink layer via the use of a high opacity primer layer. When applied to the top surface of the veneer in the flooring material of Inoue et al., the primer taught by Kalwa et al. is capable of improving adhesion between the ink layer (3) and the veneer (23) and improving the color authenticity of the ink layer.
Regarding claims 2, 13, and 14, Inoue et al. in view of Kalwa et al. teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above, and Inoue et al. further teaches that examples of materials for the veneer include maple, cedar, birch, and the like ([0030]), wherein cedar is a type of softwood (see paragraph [0021] of the as-filed specification). Inoue et al. further teaches that the base member may be made of plywood, MDF, or OSB ([0028]), where one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that a veneer made of a lightweight softwood such as cedar would have a lower density than the base member made of a compressed engineered wood such as plywood, MDF, or OSB.
Regarding claim 3, Inoue et al. in view of Kalwa et al. teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above. With respect to the limitation of claim 3 directed to two of the at least one wood veneer layers having mutually different grain directions, it is noted that this limitation is only considered to further limit the claimed decorative panel when the decorative panel includes two wood veneer layers. Neither of claims 1 or 3 positively recites that the decorative panel comprises two wood veneer layers, therefore, a decorative panel which includes only one wood veneer layer is considered to satisfy all of the limitations required by the claims. Given that the flooring material taught by Inoue et al. includes only one wood veneer layer, Inoue et al. and Kalwa et al. together satisfy all of the limitations required by claims 1 and 3.
Regarding claims 4 and 5, Inoue et al. in view of Kalwa et al. teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above, and Inoue et al. further teaches that the thickness of the veneer is preferably in the range of 0.1 to 1.0 mm ([0030]), which overlaps the ranges of claims 4 and 5. In the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05(I).
With respect to the relative density of the wood veneer layer and the core layer, Inoue et al. further teaches that examples of materials for the veneer include maple, cedar, birch, and the like, while the base member may be made of plywood, MDF, or OSB ([0028], [0030]). One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that a veneer made of a lightweight softwood such as cedar would have a lower density than a base member made of a compressed engineered wood such as plywood, MDF, or OSB.
With respect to the limitation reciting “wherein this difference in density is favorable for acoustic properties of the decorative panel”, it is noted that Inoue et al. teaches the claimed relative density between the wood veneer layer and the core layer, such that the resulting property, i.e., favorable acoustic properties, would be inherently achieved by the prior art panel.
Regarding claims 6 and 7, Inoue et al. in view of Kalwa et al. teaches all of the limitations of claims 4 and 5 above. Although Inoue et al. teaches that the thickness of the veneer (23; wood veneer layer) is preferably in the range of 0.1 to 1.0 mm ([0030]), the reference does not expressly teach a thickness of the base member (21; core layer). Inoue et al. does, however, further teach that the base member may be made of plywood, MDF, or OSB, and that there are no particular limitations on the material and thickness of the base member, so long as the veneer can be attached to its surface and the rigidity and strength of the base member can be ensured [0028].
It would, therefore, have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the decorative flooring material of Inoue et al. by setting a thickness of the base member greater than the thickness of the veneer, i.e., greater than 1.0 mm, in order to ensure that the flooring material can obtain sufficient rigidity and strength for an intended application thereof.
Regarding claim 11, Inoue et al. in view of Kalwa et al. teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above, and Inoue et al. further teaches that the ink layer (3) is composed of a plurality of ink particles (31) made of a first resin and adhered to the wood surface (2a) of the wood-based substrate (2), where exposed surfaces (2b) in which the ink particles are not formed are present between the ink particles ([0040], Fig. 3). Inoue et al. further teaches that due to the exposed surfaces (2b), both the wood grain pattern of the ink layer and the natural wood grain pattern derived from the veneer can be seen on the surface of the wood-based decorative flooring material ([0041]-[0042]). Given that Kalwa et al. teaches that the gray and white priming can be carried out digitally, for example by means of an inkjet printer ([0163]), one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the primer (back layer) can be applied only in the areas where the ink particles are formed in order to achieve the desired effect where both the wood grain pattern of the ink layer and the natural wood grain pattern of the veneer are visible. Therefore, Inoue et al. in view of Kalwa et al. teaches that a part of the top surface of the wood veneer layer is visible through the decorative top structure.
Regarding claim 12, Inoue et al. in view of Kalwa et al. teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above, and Inoue et al. further teaches that the wood grain pattern of the ink layer (3) is different from the natural wood grain pattern of the veneer (23) ([0042], Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 19, Inoue et al. in view of Kalwa et al. teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above, and Inoue et al. further teaches that the second resin constituting the surface protective layer (4) is impregnated (32) into the surface of the veneer (23) at exposed portions (2b) of its surface, thereby improving adhesion therebetween ([0014]-[0015], [0051], Fig. 3). Inoue et al. teaches that the surface protective layer may be made of a transparent resin such as polyvinyl chloride, polyethylene, polypropylene, polyethylene terephthalate, or the like ([0046]), which are examples of hydrophobic substances.
Regarding claim 20, Inoue et al. in view of Kalwa et al. teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above, and Inoue et al. further teaches that the veneer (23) may be adhered to the base member (21) by applying an adhesive to either the front surface of the base member or to the base surface of the veneer [0032].
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Inoue et al. (JP 2017-075495, machine translation previously provided) in view of Kalwa et al. (US 2015/0306888, newly cited) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Van Vlassenrode et al. (US 2024/0011306, newly cited).
Regarding claim 10, Inoue et al. in view of Kalwa et al. teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above. Although Inoue et al. teaches that a chamfered portion (25) may be formed on the periphery of the wooden surface (2a) of the wood-based substrate (2) ([0026], [0032], Figs. 1-2), the reference does not expressly teach that a part of the top surface of the wood veneer layer is left uncovered by the decorative top structure.
However, in the analogous art of decorative flooring panels, Van Vlassenrode et al. teaches a floor panel comprising a substrate, a wear layer, and a decorative layer positioned between the substrate and the wear layer (Abstract). As shown in Figs. 4-5, Van Vlassenrode et al. teaches that a chamfer or bevel (48, 50) is applied along a side of the floor panel as a lowered edge region and may extends through the thickness of the wear layer (24) and/or the decorative layer (22), and may also pass into an upper region of the substrate (20) ([0055]-[0057]). Van Vlassenrode et al. teaches that the chamfer or bevel may be covered by a cover layer (54), such as a lacquer layer, which my be colored to enhance the impression of a V-shaped groove between two adjacent panels [0057]. Van Vlassenrode et al. therefore teaches that a part of the top surface of the substrate is left uncovered by the decorative top structure formed by the decorative layer and wear layer, and may be provided with a separate coating.
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 flooring material of Inoue et al. in view of Kalwa et al. by forming the chamfered portion such that the chamfer extends through the surface protection layer, the ink layer, and the primer layer, such that the veneer is not covered by the decorative top structure and is instead provided with a separate lacquer layer, as taught by Van Vlassenrode et al. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to form the chamfered portion in this way in order to provide the chamfered portion with an appearance that is distinct from the upper surface of the panel, thus enhancing the impression of a V-shaped groove between two adjacent panels.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Inoue et al. (JP 2017-075495, machine translation previously provided) in view of Kalwa et al. (US 2015/0306888, newly cited) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Shaw (US 2023/0407648, previously cited).
Regarding claim 15, Inoue et al. in view of Kalwa et al. teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above, but the combination of references does not expressly teach that the density of the veneer is higher than that of the core.
However, in the analogous art of decorative panels, Shaw teaches a decorative panel (1) comprising a substrate (8; core layer) on which a decorative top layer (6) formed by a wood veneer (7) is provided by a layer of thermosetting resin (9) disposed between the substrate and the decorative layer ([0093]-[0094], Figs. 1-2). Shaw teaches soft wood species are typically unusable as the top layer for such decorative floor panels due to their insufficient mechanical features and further teaches that the substrate has a density which is increased locally at the surface on which the decorative layer is situated, whereas the core of the substrate has a density which is lower than average ([0004], [0069]). The combination of a high surface density with a lower internal density leads to an optimum between impact resistance and sound absorption in such floor panels [0069].
It would, therefore, have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the decorative flooring material of Inoue et al. in view of Kalwa et al. such that the wood veneer layer has a density greater than that of the core layer, as suggested by Shaw, in order to achieve an optimal balance between impact resistance and sound absorption properties, depending on the requirements for an intended application of the panel.
Claims 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Inoue et al. (JP 2017-075495, machine translation previously provided) in view of Kalwa et al. (US 2015/0306888, newly cited) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Chanana et al. (US 2024/0001585, previously cited).
Regarding claims 16-18, Inoue et al. in view of Kalwa et al. teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above, and Inoue et al. further teaches that the second resin constituting the surface protective layer (4) is impregnated (32) into the surface of the veneer (23), thereby improving adhesion therebetween ([0014]-[0015], [0051], Fig. 3). Inoue et al. teaches that the surface protective layer may be made of a transparent resin such as polyvinyl chloride, polyethylene, polypropylene, polyethylene terephthalate, or the like ([0046]), which are examples of hydrophobic substances. The hydrophobic substances of the surface protective layer which is coated and/or impregnated on the veneer are therefore capable of making the veneer more moisture resistant and durable.
Inoue et al. differs from the claimed invention in that the reference does not expressly teach that the veneer is composed of densified wood, wherein the densification is realized by compressing wood prior to or after creating the wood veneer layer, or a density thereof.
However, in the analogous art of wood products, Chanana et al. teaches a method for densifying a hygroscopic material, wherein the densified material can be used in a product such as a floor, wall, or ceiling covering (Abstract, [0195]). Chanana et al. teaches that the hydroscopic material to be densified by may selected from wood, in particular, solid wood and/or wood veneers ([0069]), such that the densification may be realized by compressing wood prior to or after creating the wood veneer. Chanana et al. teaches that the method allows for producing densified materials, such as a densified wood veneer, with improved chemical and physical properties, including mechanical stability, color stability, etc., when compared with untreated material ([0002], [0017], [0043]). The density of the obtained densified material is preferably between 1300-1600 kg/m3, depending on its original density, resulting in significantly enhanced densified materials which are suitable for a large number of different applications ([0043], [0073], [0179]). Similar to Inoue et al., Chanana et al. teaches that examples of the type of wood material include oak, maple, or birch [0177].
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 flooring material of Inoue et al. by using a densified wood veneer having a density of 1300-1600 kg/m3 for the wood veneer layer, as taught by Chanana et al., given that such densified veneers have improved chemical and physical properties as compared to untreated veneers. It is further noted that Chanana et al. teaches a density of the densified wood which overlaps or falls within the ranges of claims 16-18. In the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05(I).
Claims 1-3, 5, 7-9, 12, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rehmann (EP 1918095, machine translation previously provided) in view of Kalwa et al. (US 2015/0306888, newly cited).
Regarding claims 1 and 20, Rehmann teaches a wood-based panel (decorative panel), in particular a floor panel, with a core made of wood-based material, a real wood veneer applied to the upper side of the core, and a sealing layer covering the veneer layer [0001]. The wood-based panel comprises a core (1) comprising an OSB layer (7), a veneer (2; wood veneer layer) which is glued onto the top surface of the core by a glue layer (5), a décor (3; decorative print layer) formed by a direct printing process, and a transparent sealing layer (4; transparent protective layer) made of a UV-curable lacquer or a melamine resin ([0023], Figs. 1-3). As shown in Fig. 3, the veneer is affixed directly onto the top surface of the core via the glue layer, wherein either the entire core or the OSB layer of the core can be taken to correspond to the claimed core layer, and the decorative top structure constituted by the décor and the sealing layer is directly applied onto the top surface of the veneer, where the sealing layer covers the décor.
Although Rehmann teaches that the décor (3; decorative print layer) provided over the veneer layer allows for the use of inexpensive real wood veneers which are printed in such a way that the décor suggests to the viewer a higher quality wood ([0009]), the reference does not expressly teach that a back layer comprising a primer layer and/or a white base layer is applied between the veneer and the décor.
However, in the analogous art of decorative wood flooring panels, Kalwa et al. teaches a method for producing high quality decorative prints on carrier materials having non-uniform lightness and/or color, such as wood veneers ([0022], [0025]). Kalwa et al. teaches that white primers may be applied to the carrier materials prior to the subsequent printing of light decorations, but that a low covering power of the primer may result in the carrier material showing through the decorative print ([0019]-[0021], [0023]). Kalwa et al. therefore teaches that a pigmented primer is applied in more than one layer (e.g., 3 to 10 layers), where titanium dioxide is preferably used as a white pigment due to its high covering power ([0040]-[0043]). Kalwa et al. further teaches that a layer of gray color primer may be applied to the wood carrier board before the application of one or more further pigmented primer layers of white color in order to achieve a higher opacity and homogeneity of primer on the wood carrier board, which leads to improved color agreement between the subsequently applied decoration over the entire board area ([0044]-[0046]). Kalwa et al. therefore teaches a primer (back layer) comprising at least one white primer (white base layer) and/or at least one gray primer (primer layer) which is applied on top of a wood veneer layer, where a decorative print layer is digitally printed onto the primer.
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 wood-based panel of Rehmann by applying the primer taught by Kalwa et al. onto the top surface of the veneer layer prior to application of the décor, in order to reduce color deviations in the decoration produced by the décor via the use of a high opacity primer layer. When applied to the top surface of the veneer in the panel of Rehmann, the primer taught by Kalwa et al. is capable of improving adhesion between the décor (3) and the veneer (2) and improving the color authenticity of the décor.
Regarding claim 2, Rehmann in view of Kalwa et al. teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above, and Rehmann further teaches that the veneer may be made of inexpensive real wood, e.g., birch ([0009], [0023]).
Regarding claim 3, Rehmann in view of Kalwa et al. teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above. With respect to the limitation of claim 3 directed to two of the at least one wood veneer layers having mutually different grain directions, it is noted that this limitation is only considered to further limit the claimed decorative panel when the decorative panel includes two wood veneer layers. Neither of claims 1 or 3 positively recites that the decorative panel comprises two wood veneer layers, therefore, a decorative panel which includes only one wood veneer layer is considered to satisfy all of the limitations required by the claims. Given that the wood-based panel taught by Rehmann includes only one veneer (2), Rehmann and Kalwa et al. together satisfy all of the limitations required by claims 1 and 3.
Regarding claims 5, 7, and 9, Rehmann in view of Kalwa et al. teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above, and Rehmann further teaches that the veneer has a thickness of 0.2 to 2.5 mm, while the thickness of the core is 6 to 15 mm [0023]. Rehmann therefore teaches a thickness of the wood veneer layer which overlaps the range of claim 5 and teaches a thickness of the core layer which overlaps the range of claim 9. In the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05(I). Rehmann thus also teaches that the thickness of the wood veneer layer is smaller than the thickness of the core layer.
Regarding claim 8, Rehmann in view of Kalwa et al. teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above, and Rehmann further teaches that the thickness of the core is 6 to 15 mm [0023]. Rehmann therefore teaches a thickness of the core layer which overlaps the claimed range. In the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05(I).
With respect to the limitation reciting “wherein the decorative panel exhibits reduced sound transmission compared to SPC panels due to increased sound absorption and improved sound reflection”, while it is acknowledged that all of the claimed properties are not explicitly recited by Rehmann in view of Kalwa et al., the combination of references teaches all of the claimed features/materials/layers. Therefore, the claimed physical properties, i.e., reduced sound transmission compared to SPC panels due to increased sound absorption and improved sound reflection, would be inherently achieved by a composite with all the claimed features/materials/layers.
In looking to paragraph [0012] of the as-filed specification, the decorative panel according to the present invention is said to include at least one intermediate wood layer positioned in between the core layer(s) and the decorative top structure, where the presence of such a natural wooden layer provides a softer feel underfoot compared to SPC panels, and the panel produces a somewhat softer sound when walked upon. Further, the acoustic properties of the decorative panel according to the present invention is said to be better than the acoustic properties of traditional panels, such as SPC panels and/or traditional HDF laminate panels. In particular, the panel according to the present invention exhibits a reduced sound transmission (due to an increased sound absorption and an improved sound reflection), which provides the panel excellent acoustic properties [0012]. Given that the wood-based panel taught by Rehmann in view of Kalwa et al. has a substantially identical structure and is made of substantially identical materials to that of the present invention, in particular including an intermediate wood veneer layer positioned in between the core layer and the decorative top structure, the wood-based panel of the prior art is considered to inherently possess the property of exhibiting reduced sound transmission compared to SPC panels due to increased sound absorption and improved sound reflection.
The instant specification has not provided adequate teachings that the claimed properties are obtainable only with the claimed features/layers/materials. Should the Applicant disagree, it is requested that evidence is provided to support their position. See also MPEP 2112, 2112.01 and analogous burden of proof in MPEP 2113.
Regarding claim 12, Rehmann in view of Kalwa et al. teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above, and Rehmann further teaches that the surface of the veneer layer is printed with at least one color application that changes the décor, so that the wood-based panel appears to be of higher quality ([0007]-[0008]). In particular, Rehmann teaches that an inexpensive real wood veneer (e.g., birch) is printed in such a way that a décor is created that suggests to the viewer a higher quality, for example, fine wood décor (e.g., oak, mahogany) ([0009], [0023]). Therefore, the décor defines a pattern which deviates from the natural wood pattern of the veneer layer.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rehmann (EP 1918095, machine translation previously provided) in view of Kalwa et al. (US 2015/0306888, newly cited) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Van Vlassenrode et al. (US 2024/0011306, newly cited).
Regarding claim 10, Rehmann in view of Kalwa et al. teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above. Although Rehmann teaches that a chamfer (14) may be formed on at least two opposite side edges such that when two panels are joined together, the bevels complement each other to form V-joints ([0012], Fig. 1), the reference does not expressly teach that a part of the top surface of the wood veneer layer is left uncovered by the decorative top structure.
However, in the analogous art of decorative flooring panels, Van Vlassenrode et al. teaches a floor panel comprising a substrate, a wear layer, and a decorative layer positioned between the substrate and the wear layer (Abstract). As shown in Figs. 4-5, Van Vlassenrode et al. teaches that a chamfer or bevel (48, 50) is applied along a side of the floor panel as a lowered edge region and may extends through the thickness of the wear layer (24) and/or the decorative layer (22), and may also pass into an upper region of the substrate (20) ([0055]-[0057]). Van Vlassenrode et al. teaches that the chamfer or bevel may be covered by a cover layer (54), such as a lacquer layer, which my be colored to enhance the impression of a V-shaped groove between two adjacent panels [0057]. Van Vlassenrode et al. therefore teaches that a part of the top surface of the substrate is left uncovered by the decorative top structure formed by the decorative layer and wear layer, and may be provided with a separate coating.
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 wood-based panel of Rehmann in view of Kalwa et al. by forming the chamfer such that it extends through the sealing layer, the decor, and the primer layer, such that the veneer is not covered by the decorative top structure and is instead provided with a separate lacquer layer, as taught by Van Vlassenrode et al. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to form the chamfer in this way in order to provide the chamfer with an appearance that is distinct from the upper surface of the panel, thus enhancing the impression of a V-shaped groove between two adjacent panels.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rehmann (EP 1918095, machine translation previously provided) in view of Kalwa et al. (US 2015/0306888, newly cited) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Shaw (US 2023/0407648, previously cited).
Regarding claim 15, Rehmann in view of Kalwa et al. teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above, but the combination of references does not expressly teach that the density of the veneer is higher than that of the core.
However, in the analogous art of decorative panels, Shaw teaches a decorative panel (1) comprising a substrate (8; core layer) on which a decorative top layer (6) formed by a wood veneer (7) is provided by a layer of thermosetting resin (9) disposed between the substrate and the decorative layer ([0093]-[0094], Figs. 1-2). Shaw teaches soft wood species are typically unusable as the top layer for such decorative floor panels due to their insufficient mechanical features and further teaches that the substrate has a density which is increased locally at the surface on which the decorative layer is situated, whereas the core of the substrate has a density which is lower than average ([0004], [0069]). The combination of a high surface density with a lower internal density leads to an optimum between impact resistance and sound absorption in such floor panels [0069].
It would, therefore, have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the wood-based panel taught by Rehmann in view of Kalwa et al. such that the wood veneer layer has a density greater than that of the core layer, as suggested by Shaw, in order to achieve an optimal balance between impact resistance and sound absorption properties, depending on the requirements for an intended application of the panel.
Response to Arguments
Response-Claim Objections
The previous objections to claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 8, 9, 13, 15, 16, 19, and 20 are overcome by the Applicant’s amendments to the claims in the response filed October 30, 2025. However, claims 17 and 18 remain objected to, and a new objection in light of the amendments to claim 1 is raised in the office action above.
Response-Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 and 103
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 5-9 of the remarks filed October 30, 2025, with respect to amended claims 1, 4, 8, and 16-18 have been considered but are moot because they do not address the new combination of references being used in the rejections above.
In light of the amendments to claim 1, the previous rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102 based on Kaneuchi et al., Inoue et al., and Rehmann are withdrawn, and Kalwa et al. is used as a secondary reference in combination with primary references to Inoue et al. and Rehmann to address the new limitations directed to the decorative top structure comprising a back layer.
In light of the amendments to claim 4, Inoue et al. in view of Kalwa et al. are applied above to address the new combination of limitations directed to the relative density of the wood veneer layer and the core layer and the acoustic properties that result therefrom.
In light of the amendments to claim 8, Rehmann et al. in view of Kalwa et al. are applied above to address the new limitations directed to the decorative panel exhibiting reduced sound transmission compared to SPC panels.
In light of the amendments to claims 16, Inoue et al. in view of Kalwa et al. and Chanana et al. are applied above to address the new combination of limitations, wherein Inoue et al. is relied upon to teach the wood veneer layer being impregnated and/or coated with a hydrophobic substance, while Chanana et al. is relied upon to render obvious the use of a densified wood veneer layer in the panel of Inoue et al.
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 REBECCA L GRUSBY whose telephone number is (571)272-1564. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:30 AM-5:30 PM.
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, Mark Ruthkosky can be reached at (571) 272-1291. 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.
/Rebecca L Grusby/Examiner, Art Unit 1785