DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendments filed 12/31/25 have been entered. Currently claims 1-8, 13, 14, 17, and 20-25 are pending, claims 1-8 are withdrawn and claims 9-12, 15, 16, 17 and 19 are cancelled.
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 13, 14, 17, and 20-25 are 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. There is no support for having a glycol ether solvent as being claimed. The specification provides support for a solvent comprising glycol diethers (paragraph 13 of the PGPUB).
Further as to claim 17, there is no support for the glycol ether to be a hydrophobic solvent. Paragraph 13 of the PGPUB teaches glycol diethers such as Dipropylene Glycol Dimethyl Ether which are hydrophilic solvents. Further in paragraph 17 the hydrophobic solvents are propylacetate, diphenylmethane and diphenylethane. Therefore, there is no support to have a glycol ether hydrophobic solvent.
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.
Claims 13, 17, 21, and 23-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jacobsson (WO 2013139681) in view of Segaert (US Publication 20090260313) and Yoo et al (KR 100969944 B1 which has been machine translated).
a. As to claims 13, 21, 24 and 25, Jacobsson discloses a method of producing a building panel such as a floor board, comprising a core layer with a decorative surface layer. The core layer can be MDF/HDF formed with wood fibers and melamineureumformaldehyde and cut into panels that would be approximately a size of the floor board. The floor board is impregnated with a mixture (solution suspension colloid) as well having a coating layer form on the core layer and underneath the decorative surface layer. The mixture comprises a solvent such as glycol or water, and is going to penetrate immediately below the decorative surface. The coating is sprayed onto the substrate. The panel has mechanical coupling means provided at the edges. However, this reference is silent to profiling the edge of the plank and applying the coating to the edge of the plank as well as the specific glycol solvent.
b. Segaert discloses a floor panel made of MDF or HDF wherein said floor panel comprises a decorative layer on top of the MDF/HDF layer wherein the panels are milled with a lower edge surface. The panel further comprises a first coating layer 39 that prevents moisture penetration and a second coating layer 40 that can be an impregnation agent coating with moisture resistance. The coatings 39 and 40 are located at the joint where the mechanical coupling means are that join two floor boards together as the edge has been profiled.
c. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Jacobsson and formed the coating on the profiled edge of the core as suggested by Segaert after milling the panels to the correct size and used the material of the coating layer 39 within the solution as it would provide improved water repellency and panel properties at the edge.
d. Yoo discloses a water-based primer composition that penetrates into flooring that acts as a barrier. The solvent used for the composition is dipropylene glycol dimethyl ether.
e. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Jacobsson and used the solvent as suggested by Yoo as it’s a suitable alternative known to be used in flooring for penetration of a barrier coating.
Since the solvent can be dipropylene glycol dimethyl ether it will inherently have a flash point above 30 degrees Celsius.
Further it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Jacobsson, Yoo and Segaert and had the solvent be 10 to 40% by weight as one would know how to adjust the amount of solvent to allow all the binder, particles, additives to dissolve homogenously in order to form a solution, a suspension or a colloid in order to allow for easy application of the impregnation agent. Using too much solvent would cost more while using not enough would be cheaper but may not form a homogenous solution.
f. As to claim 17, Jacobsson further discloses that the composition can comprise alcohol which can act as a hydrophobic solvent.
f. As to claim 23, Jacobsson discloses that the decorative layer is a layer formed of paper impregnated with a thermosetting resin (melamine resin).
Claims 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jacobsson (WO 2013139681), Segaert (US Publication 20090260313) and Yoo et al (KR 100969944 B1 which has been machine translated) in view of Deringor et al (US Publication 20070209736).
a. Jacobsson, Yoo and Segaert render claim 13 obvious for the reasons noted above, however this reference is silent to a transporting device
b. Deringor discloses a flooring panel wherein the panel is transported on a transporting device for the MDF/HDF planks.
c. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have used the transporting device as suggested by Deringor as it would allow to transport the flooring from one method step to the next as it would be more efficient.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have spray coated the impregnation agent on the transporting device.
Claims 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jacobsson (WO 2013139681), Segaert (US Publication 20090260313) and Yoo et al (KR 100969944 B1 which has been machine translated) in view of Hwang et al (US Publication 20040161624).
Jacobsson, Yoo and Segaert render claim 13 obvious for the reasons noted above, however this reference is silent to wax in the MDF/HDF.
Hwang et al disclose a wood panel comprised of MDF or HDF wherein the floor board contains a wax emulsion in an amount of 3% by weight of the layer for improved water moisture resistance.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Jacobsson, Yoo and Segaert and used the MDF/HDF layer of Hwang or added wax to the MDF/HDF layer as suggested by Hwang as it would have improved the layer against moisture by increasing its resistance.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 22 is 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/31/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s argue that the combination of Jacobsson and Segaert a solvent being a glycol ether in an amount of 10-40% by weight. The examiner respectfully disagrees and notes the new rejection provided above.
Further applicants argue unexpectedly better results; however, the examiner respectfully disagrees and argues that the examples provided within the application are not commensurate in scope with the claims.
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 CHRISTOPHER M POLLEY whose telephone number is (571)270-5734. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday from 8am till 4:30 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 5712721291. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER M POLLEY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1785
Prosecution Insights