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 .
This Office Action is in response to the Amendment dated June 11, 2026. Currently, claims 1-22 and 36 are pending in the application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-7, 12, 15, 20-22, and 36 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Svenska (CH 306711).
Referring to claim 1: Svenska teaches a surfacing product having a longitudinal axis (figure 8, horizontal direction), a transverse axis (figure 8 vertical direction) that is perpendicular to the longitudinal axis, and a thickness axis (figure 9, vertical direction) that is perpendicular to each of the longitudinal axis and the transverse axis, the surfacing product comprising: a core (item 3) having a first surface and an opposed second surface that are spaced along the thickness axis; and a veneer (item 5) coupled to the first surface of the core, wherein the veneer comprises: a first veneer segment (figure 8, item 5 left side) that is elongate along the longitudinal axis; a second veneer (figure 8, item 5 right side) segment that is elongate along the longitudinal axis; and an insert segment (figure 8, item 5 middle section), wherein along the longitudinal axis, the insert segment is positioned between the first veneer segment and the second veneer segment.
Referring to claim 2: Svenska teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as noted above. Additionally, Svenska teaches wherein each of the first veneer segment, second veneer segment, and insert segment have a respective grain, each respective grain extending along a respective grain axis, wherein the grain axis of the grain of the first veneer segment is angularly offset from the grain axis of the grain of the insert segment (figure 8).
Referring to claim 3: Svenska teaches all the limitations of claim 2 as noted above. Additionally, Svenska teaches wherein the grain axes of the grains of the first and second veneer segments are parallel or generally parallel to each other (figure 8).
Referring to claim 5: Svenska teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as noted above. Additionally, Svenska teaches wherein the insert segment is elongate along the transverse axis (figure 8).
Referring to claim 6: Svenska teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as noted above. Additionally, Svenska teaches wherein the first veneer segment and the second veneer segment comprise the same material (paragraph 1 of translation and claim 1).
Referring to claim 7: Svenska teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as noted above. Additionally, Svenska teaches wherein each of the first veneer segment, the second veneer segment, and the insert segment comprise the same material (paragraph 1 of translation).
Referring to claim 12: Svenska teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as noted above. Additionally, Svenska teaches wherein at least one of the first veneer segment, the second veneer segment, or the insert segment comprises wood (claim 1).
Referring to claim 15: Svenska teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as noted above. Additionally, Svenska teaches wherein the core comprises wood (paragraph 1 of translation).
Referring to claim 20: Svenska teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as noted above. Additionally, Svenska teaches wherein the first veneer segment and the second veneer segment abut the insert segment (figure 8).
Referring to claim 21: Svenska teaches all the limitation of claim 1 as noted above. Svenska does not specifically teach wherein the surfacing product has a length along the longitudinal axis, wherein the first, second, and insert segments cooperatively extend along the entire length, or substantially the entire length, of the surfacing product along the longitudinal axis. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have the first, second and insert segments extend the entire length of the surfacing product in order to provide complete coverage of the surfacing product.
Referring to claim 22: Svenska teaches all the structure of claim 1 as noted above. Additionally, Svenska teaches a method of making the surfacing product of claim 1, the method comprising: coupling the first veneer segment, the second veneer segment, and the insert segment to the core with a binder (paragraph 13 of translation).
Referring to claim 36: Svenska teaches all the structure of claim 1 as noted above. Additionally, Svenska teaches a kit comprising: a plurality of surfacing products as in claim 1, wherein the plurality of surfacing products are configured to be selectively coupled together to define a surface covering Paragraph 14 of translation).
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) 13, 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Svenska in view of Kahr (US Patent No 2,900,676).
Referring to claim 13: Svenska teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as noted above. Svenska does not teach wherein at least one of the first veneer segment, the second veneer segment, or the insert segment comprises oak. However, Kahr teaches wherein at least one of the first veneer segment, the second veneer segment, or the insert segment comprises oak (col 4, lines 15-16).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to create the device taught by Svenska with an oak veneer taught by Kahr in order to provide a desired look as well as a durable outer layer. Oak is well known for its durability.
Referring to claim 14: Svenska and Kahr teach all the limitations of claim 13 as noted above. They do not teach wherein the oak is white oak. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to make the veneer white oak because of its durability and desirable appearance.
Claim(s) 16-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Svenska.
Referring to claim 16: Svenska teaches all the limitations of claim 15 as noted above. Svenska does not specifically teach wherein the wood of the core is Russian Birch. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to choose Russian Birch as the core material because of its known strength.
Referring to claim 17: Svenska teaches all the limitations of claim 15 as noted above. Svenska does not specifically teach wherein the core comprises plywood. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to choose plywood as the core because of its known strength and dimensional stability.
Referring to claim 18: Svenska teaches all the limitations of claim 15 as noted above. Additionally, Svenska teaches wherein the core material comprises a plurality of core segments that are coupled together at one or more respective joint junctions (figure 10). However, Svenska does not teach the joint junction is a lap joint junction. However, the Examiner gives Official Notice that it is known in the art to join wood segments together using lap joints to provide strength in the joint over a typical butt joint.
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Svenska in view of Chou.
Referring to claim 19: Svenska teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as noted above. Svenska does not teach wherein the surfacing product has first and second edges that are spaced along the transverse axis and extend longitudinally along a length of the surfacing product, wherein the first and second edges define, respectively, a tongue and a groove. However, Chou teaches wherein the surfacing product has first and second edges that are spaced along the transverse axis and extend longitudinally along a length of the surfacing product, wherein the first and second edges define, respectively, a tongue and a groove (figure 4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to create the device taught by Svenska with the edges taught by Chou in order to allow the device to be created in smaller sections and installed securely with adjacent sections to form a larger surface covering.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-3, 5-7, 15-17, 20, and 21 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. The arguments in regards to Gartland are no longer valid as it is no longer relied upon as a base reference for the rejection of the claims.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4 and 8-11 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PATRICK J MAESTRI whose telephone number is (571)270-7859. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7-3.
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 Mattei can be reached at 571-270-3238. 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.
/PATRICK J MAESTRI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3635
Prosecution Insights