DETAILED ACTION
The communication dated 8/8/2024 has been entered and fully considered.
Claims 1-16 are pending. Claims 13-15 are withdrawn from further consideration.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-12 and 16, in the interview summary reply filed on 5/13/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 13-15 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 interview summary reply filed on 5/13/2026.
Claim Objections
Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informalities: “fiber is used as stabilization sheet” should read “fiber is used as the stabilization sheet”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “means” in claims 4 and 7.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claim(s) 1-6 and 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ziegler et al. (U.S. PGPUB 2019/0210330), hereinafter ZIEGLER, as evidenced by HODGSON-STOKX et al. (U.S. PGPUB 2019/0022971), hereinafter HODGSON.
Regarding claim 1, ZIEGLER teaches: Method for manufacturing a stabilized veneer without a carrier board (ZIEGLER teaches a method for manufacturing a stabilized veneer [Abstract; 0092; Figs. 1A-1C; 0080].), comprising the steps of: - providing a stabilization sheet (ZIEGLER teaches a stabilization layer (1) [Figs. 1A-1C; 0080].), - one-sided coating of the stabilization sheet with a condensation resin (ZIEGLER teaches coating the stabilization sheet (1) with a condensation resin (2a/2b) [Fig. 1A; 0081; 0084]. Condensation resins are urea-, melamine- or phenol- formaldehyde resins as evidenced by HODGSON [0058].), - arranging the stabilization sheet with the coating on the backside of a veneer layer (ZIEGLER teaches arranging the stabilization sheet (1) with the coating (2a/2b) on the backside of a veneer layer (3) [Figs. 1A-1C; 0113; 0117].), - pressing the stabilization sheet and the veneer layer to form a stabilization layer (ZIEGLER teaches pressing the stabilization sheet (1) and the veneer layer (3) to form a stabilization layer [0113; 0117; Figs. 1C, 3].), whereby, - the condensation resin is at least partially pressed out of the stabilization sheet into the veneer layer during pressing, where it supplies mechanical stabilization to the veneer (ZIEGLER teaches permeation of the binder in the coating (2a, 2b) can be controlled [0123-0126].).
Regarding claim 2, ZIEGLER teaches: wherein one side of the stabilization sheet opposite the coated side is free of a coating with the condensation resin (ZIEGLER shows one side of the stabilization sheet (1) opposite the coated side (2a, 2b) is free of a coating with the condensation resin [Fig. 2].).
Regarding claim 3, ZIEGLER teaches: wherein a melamine-formaldehyde resin, a urea-formaldehyde resin and/or a phenol-formaldehyde resin or mixtures of several of these resins are used as the condensation resin (ZIEGLER teaches urea0formalehyde resin or melamine-formaldehyde resins may be used as the condensation resin [0095].).
Regarding claim 4, ZIEGLER teaches: wherein the condensation resin is a postforming resin and/or is adjusted to be flexible by means of at least one elasticizer in such a way that the stabilized veneer can be rolled up into a roll after pressing (ZIEGLER teaches the condensation resin may be rolled up [0092], indicating the resin is flexible.).
Regarding claim 5, ZIEGLER teaches: wherein the condensation resin comprises at least one additive selected from the group consisting of hardener, wetting agent, colorant, pigment, effect pigment, flame retardant, ink, UV stabilizer, infrared absorber, agent for increasing conductivity, antibacterial agent, hydrophobizing agent, bleaching agent, stain and combinations thereof (ZIEGLER teaches the condensation resin comprises at least one additive that may be wetting agents [0101-0104].).
Regarding claim 6, ZIEGLER teaches: wherein the veneer layer has a thickness of between 0.1 mm and 1 mm (ZIEGLER teaches the veneer layer has a thickness of 0.2 to 1 mm [0087].).
Regarding claim 8, ZIEGLER teaches: wherein the pressing is carried out at a pressure of between 10 bar and 70 bar and/or at a temperature of between 150°C and 220°C (ZIEGLER teaches pressing the veneer at a temperature of 160°C using a pressing force of 40 bars [0137].).
Regarding claim 9, ZIEGLER teaches: wherein a parchment, a paper, a nonwoven, a vulcanized fiber or another fibrous layer is used as the stabilization sheet and/or the grammage of the stabilization sheet is between 50 g/m2 and 300 g/m2 (ZIEGLER teaches the stabilization sheet (1) may be a sheet of paper [0080].).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ziegler et al. (U.S. PGPUB 2019/0210330), hereinafter ZIEGLER, in view of Chen et al. (U.S. PGPUB 2005/0003160), hereinafter CHEN.
Regarding claim 7, ZIEGLER teaches all of the claimed limitations as stated above, but is silent as to: wherein the pressing is carried out by means of a double belt press. In the same field of endeavor, veneers, CHEN teaches pressing can be carried out by a double belt press [0059]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to modify ZIEGLER, by pressing being carried out by a double belt press, as suggested by CHEN, in order to provide a steady uniform pressure effect on each point of the treated surface and it is a process customarily used to manufacture laminate films [0059].
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ziegler et al. (U.S. PGPUB 2019/0210330), hereinafter ZIEGLER, in view of Brown (U.S. 2005/0136254), hereinafter BROWN.
Regarding claim 10, ZIEGLER teaches all of the claimed limitations as stated above, but is silent as to: wherein vulcanized fiber is used as stabilization sheet in order to obtain a biocomposite. In the same field of endeavor, veneers, BROWN teaches vulcanized fiber is used as stabilization sheet [0031-0032]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to modify ZIEGLER, by using vulcanized fibers as the stabilization sheet, as suggested by BROWN, in order to reduce manufacturing costs [0040] and to be used to securely anchor veneers in place [0005].
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ziegler et al. (U.S. PGPUB 2019/0210330), hereinafter ZIEGLER, in view of KALWA et al. (WO 2021/094198), hereinafter KAWLA.
Regarding claim 11, ZIEGLER teaches all of the claimed limitations as stated above, but is silent as to: wherein the coating of the stabilization sheet with the condensation resin is dried to a residual moisture of less than 7.5% before the stabilization sheet is arranged on the backside of the veneer layer. In the same field of endeavor, veneers, KALWA teaches the resin has a residual moisture content of up to 8% [pg. 1], which overlaps with the claimed range. Overlapping ranges are prima facie evidence of obviousness. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to modify ZIEGLER, by having the resin have a residual moisture content of up to 8%, as suggested by KALWA, in order to remain sticky [pg. 2].
Claim(s) 12 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ziegler et al. (U.S. PGPUB 2019/0210330), hereinafter ZIEGLER, in view of Pervan et al. (U.S. PGPUB 2009/0155612), hereinafter PERVAN.
Regarding claim 12, ZIEGLER teaches all of the claimed limitations as stated above, but is silent as to: wherein a structuring agent and/or a transfer paper for transferring prints to the veneer are arranged on the surface of the veneer layer during pressing. In the same field of endeavor, veneers, PERVAN teaches a transfer paper is arranged on the surface of the panel prior to pressing or during pressing and transfer the decoration onto the panel [0280]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art the time of the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to modify ZIEGLER, by having a transfer paper on the surface the veneer, as suggested by PERVAN, in order to give different design effects [0282].
Regarding claim 16, PERVAN further teaches: wherein the structuring agent is a structuring agent for producing different gloss levels (PERVAN further teaches the paper/foil may be combined with special chemicals to create a glossy surface [0283]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CAROLINE BEHA whose telephone number is (571)272-2529. The examiner can normally be reached MONDAY - FRIDAY 9:00 A.M. - 5:00 P.M.
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, ABBAS RASHID can be reached at (571) 270-7457. 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.
/C.B./Examiner, Art Unit 1748
/Abbas Rashid/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1748
Prosecution Insights