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 .
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 16-27 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.
As to claim 1, the claim recites that the coating layer is formed to absorb and bond color particles. it is not clear whether the color particles are part of a layer (6) comprising a coating agent and stain additives; or a ready-to-use, fully cured decorative surface (2). Appropriate correction is required.
As to claim 24, it is unclear what is meant by HPL, CPL, DPL. The term “as” before “a lacquer surface” should be removed from the claim to avoid a grammatical error.
As to claim 27, it is unclear what is meant by CDF material, MDF material, HDF material and OSB material. Appropriate correction is required.
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(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 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.
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 16-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2018/0043655 to Fuhr (hereinafter “Fuhr”).
Fuhr discloses a material 100 comprising a stainable melamine layer 120, multiple backing layer 111 and a substrate 110 (figure 11). The melamine layer is formed by saturating a sheet 125 with a melamine resin 124 that contains at least one porosity agent including silica, wax, mica, silane, kaolin clay or any combinations thereof (paragraph 34). The porosity agent does not become fully saturated with the melamine resin, thereby providing routes and pathways for a wood stain to seep through the porosity agent down to ultimately stain the sheet 125 (paragraph 34). The porosity agent renders the melamine layer porous, thereby facilitating the absorption and bonding of the wood stain within the melamine layer. The porosity agent reads on the claimed stain additive.
Fuhr also teaches that decorative designs are printed on the backing layer (paragraph 61). The backing layer reads on the claimed ready-to-use, fully cured decorative surface.
PNG
media_image1.png
377
535
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As to claims 17 and 18, Fuhr discloses that the melamine layer is formed by saturating a sheet 125 with a melamine resin 124 that contains at least one porosity agent including silica, wax, mica, silane, kaolin clay or combinations thereof (paragraph 34). Fuhr also teaches that the porosity agent can be introduced in another thermosetting resin including polyurethane, acrylate resin, or urea resin and each of which corresponding to the claimed lacquer based on an aminoplast (paragraph 43).
As to claim 19, Fuhr discloses that the porosity agent comprises kaolin which naturally occurs in a hydrated form (paragraph 34).
As to claim 20, Fuhr discloses that the melamine layer contains a porosity agent in an amount of 30 to 60% by weight (paragraph 48). This is within the claimed range.
As to claims 21 and 22, Fuhr teaches that the porosity agent can be introduced in another thermosetting resin including polyurethane, acrylate resin, or urea resin and each of which corresponding to the claimed lacquer based on an aminoplast (paragraph 43).
As to claim 23, Fuhr teaches that the formulation for a melamine resin includes 89% by weight of melamine resin, and 7.62% by weight of water (paragraph 39). Hence, the melamine formulation is a water-based material.
As to claim 24, Fuhr teaches that the backing layer is paper or kraft paper saturated in a phenolic resin (paragraph 60). The backing layer is a decorative paper (paragraph 61).
As to claim 25-27, Fuhr teaches that the backing layer is in the form of multiple backing layers (paragraph 60). One of the backing layers is made of paper, plastic material, and natural fibers/synthetic fibers (paragraph 60). This reads on the claimed wood composite or the claimed wood-plastic composite.
Claims 16-19, and 21-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over US 7,273,651 to Wilde (hereinafter “Wilde”).
Wilde discloses a crackle coat 10 provided on a wood surface 12 as shown in figure 1.
PNG
media_image2.png
252
545
media_image2.png
Greyscale
The crackle coat 10 is sequentially arranged from top to bottom: a top coat 28, a water-based latex wood filler coat 20, a crackle medium 18, a base coat 16, and a sealer coat 14. The base coat is a latex paint or stain available in several degrees of gloss (column 2, lines 35-35). The base coat is applied to the sealer coat or directly to the wood surface 12 and dried (column 2, lines 30-35). The base coat reads on the claimed ready-to-use, fully cured decorative surface.
The latex wood filler coat comprises acrylic lacquer and stain additive comprising talc, limestone, kaolin, mineral class, calcite and quartz (column 3, lines 15-35). The latex wood filler coat forms raised islands or domains separated by cracks 26, making wood surface 12 appear cracked, and revealing glimpses of underlying base coat 16 (figure 1). The cracks make the wood filler coat porous. The latex wood filler coat is a yellow paste with a specific gravity of 1.71 (column 3, lines 20-25). The yellow paste indicates that the latex wood filler coat would inherently absorb and bond color particles.
As to claims 17, 18, 21, and 22, Wilde discloses that the latex wood filler coat comprises acrylic lacquer and stain additive comprising talc, limestone, kaolin, mineral class, calcite and quartz (column 3, lines 15-35).
As to claim 19, Wilde discloses that the stain additive comprises kaolin which naturally occurs in a hydrated form ((column 3, lines 15-35).
As to claim 23, Wilde discloses that the latex wood filler coat is a water-based coating material (column 3, lines 5-10).
As to claim 24, Wilde discloses that the crackle coat 10 sequentially comprises from top to bottom: a top coat 28, a water-based latex wood filler coat 20, a crackle medium 18, a base coat 16, and a sealer coat 14. The base coat is a latex paint or stain available in several degrees of gloss (column 2, lines 35-35). The base coat is applied to the sealer coat or directly to the wood surface 12 and dried (column 2, lines 30-35). The base coat reads on the claimed ready-to-use, fully cured decorative surface.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wilde.
Wilde discloses that the latex wood filler coat comprises an acrylic lacquer, 5-10% by weight magnesium carbonate, 50-70% by weight limestone, 1-5% by weight chlorite, 1-5% by weight kaolin, 1-5% by weight calcite, 5-10% by weight talc, and 0.1-0.99% by weight of quartz (column 3, lines 15-20). The combination of the kaolin, talc and quartz reads on the claimed stain additive and their combined content overlaps the claimed range.
In the case, where the claimed ranges overlap or touch the range disclosed by the prior art a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257,191 USPQ90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990), In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
The claim is not rendered unobvious because discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. Difference in the content of the stain additive will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating that the content of the stain additive is critical or provides unexpected results.
Therefore, in the absence of unexpected results, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the content of the stain additive in the range instantly claimed, motivated by the desire to optimize crackle finish. This is in line with In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 which holds discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art.
Claims 25-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wilde as applied to claim 16 above, further in view of Fuhr.
Wilde does not explicitly disclose the wood surface which is a wood-plastic composite or a wood composite.
Fuhr, however, discloses a material 100 comprising a stainable melamine layer 120, multiple backing layer 111 and a substrate 110 (figure 11). The melamine layer is formed by saturating a sheet 125 with a melamine resin 124 that contains at least one porosity agent including silica, wax, mica, silane, kaolin clay or any combinations thereof (paragraph 34). The porosity agent does not become fully saturated with the melamine resin, thereby providing routes and pathways for a wood stain to seep through the porosity agent down to ultimately stain the sheet 125 (paragraph 34). The porosity agent renders the melamine layer porous, thereby facilitating the absorption and bonding of the wood stain within the melamine layer. The decorative designs are printed on the backing layer (paragraph 61). The substrate is a wood composite comprising a medium density fiberboard (MDF), a high density fiberboard (HDF), or an oriented strand board (OSB) (paragraph 26).
PNG
media_image1.png
377
535
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to motivated by the desire to use a wood composite disclosed in Fuhr for the wood surface disclosed in Wilde because such is one of typical engineered wood products in combination with the finishing coating and Fuhr provides necessary details to practice with Wilde.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Hai Vo whose telephone number is (571)272-1485. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:00 am - 6:00 pm with every other Friday off.
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, Alicia Chevalier can be reached at 571-272-1490. 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.
/Hai Vo/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1788