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 April 15, 2026 are entered into the file. Currently, claims 59-61, 63-66, 68-71, and 73-77 are amended; claims 1-58 are cancelled; resulting in claims 59-78 pending for examination.
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.
(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.
Claims 59-66, 70-72, and 78 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Stolarski et al. (EP 1020504, previously cited).
Regarding claim 59, Stolarski et al. teaches laminated product pieces (100, 200; decorative panels) each comprising an anterior or first superstructure surface material (101, 201), a substrate or core material (102, 202), and a posterior or second superstructure surface material (103, 203) ([0014], Fig. 3A). The interface between the anterior surface material (101, 201) and the substrate material (102, 202), and the interface between the posterior surface material (103, 203) and substrate material (102, 202), may each include a layer of adhesive material to provide mechanical integrity in the resulting laminated product [0021].
As shown in Fig. 3A, a tongue and a groove (320, 323; first and second coupling parts) are arranged on respective first and second opposing edges of the laminated product pieces. As shown in Figs. 3A-3F, the tongue and groove are arranged to be coupled to provide a locking of two coupled pieces (100, 200) at seam (250), such that a part of the first upper edge portion on the first edge faces at least a part of the second upper edge portion to form a top seam (303) in between the laminated product pieces.
Stolarski et al. teaches that an adhesive (350; expandable material layer) may be deposited into the groove or onto the tongue of the laminate pieces, where the adhesive is adapted to expand and fill all gaps of the seam (250) such that all edge surfaces of the laminate pieces (100, 200) are engaged with adhesive ([0035]-[0036], Figs. 3B-3F). The adhesive may be a one-component moisture-cured urethane which undergoes a foaming reaction that fills free spaces between the materials to be joined upon interaction with water [0031]. The adhesive is therefore configured to expand or swell upon contact with moisture to create or improve a seal between panels in a coupled condition. As shown in Figs. 3D and 3F, the adhesive (350) is at least partially exposed at the interface in between the two pieces (100, 200) in the coupled position.
Stolarski et al. further teaches that the anterior surface material (101, 201) may be a laminated product prepared using a decorative paper layer (decorative layer) having a desired pattern printed thereon which is impregnated with resin and laminated to one or more sheets of kraft paper impregnated with phenol formaldehyde resin, and an overlay layer (transparent and/or translucent protective layer) bonded to the surface of the decorative layer that will be exposed in the final product [0017]. The decorative paper layer and overlay layer together correspond to the claimed decorative top section. The overlay layer covering the decorative paper layer is understood to be transparent and/or translucent in order for the decorative pattern to be visible therethrough. The interface between the anterior surface material and the substrate material preferably includes a layer of adhesive material ([0021]), such that the anterior surface material is affixed to an upper side of the core.
The substrate material (102, 202) in combination with the adhesive (350), the two adhesive layers located between the substrate material and the anterior and posterior surface materials, and optionally at least part of the anterior and/or posterior surface materials can therefore be taken to correspond to the claimed core which comprises at least three material layers. For example, when the decorative paper layer and the overlay layer of the anterior surface material (101, 201) are taken together to correspond to the claimed decorative top section, the one or more sheets of kraft paper impregnated with phenol formaldehyde resin, either alone or in combination with the adhesive layer located between the anterior surface material and the substrate material, may be taken to correspond to the claimed upper layer. As shown in Fig. 3B, the adhesive (350; expandable material layer) may be deposited into the groove (323) formed in the substrate material (202) of the decorative panel (200) ([0036]), such that the adhesive is arranged in between the upper layer and the lower layer of the at least three material layers of the core.
Regarding claim 60, Stolarski et al. teaches all of the limitations of claim 59 above and further teaches that the foaming (i.e., expansion or swelling) of the adhesive not only fills any free spaces between the materials to be joined, but also squeezes out the seams over the anterior and posterior surfaces to completely seal any initial gaps [0031]. Stolarski et al. further teaches that gaps (including gap (303) at the top seam) present between the substrate materials when interfaced without the adhesive are filled by the adhesive which expands due to the foaming ([0033], [0035], Figs. 3A, 3F), such that the top seam is tightened by expansion or swelling of the adhesive.
Regarding claim 61, Stolarski et al. teaches all of the limitations of claim 59 above. As shown in Figs. 3B-3F, the adhesive (350; expandable material layer) is partially covered by the overlay layer (protective layer) of the anterior surface material (101) at least at one of the edges of the laminated product piece.
Regarding claim 62, Stolarski et al. teaches all of the limitations of claim 59 above. As noted above, Stolarski et al. teaches that the adhesive (350; expandable material layer) may be deposited into the groove or onto the tongue of the pieces of material to be joined, where the adhesive is distributed throughout the seam (250) when the tongue of one panel is inserted into the groove ([0036], Figs. 3B-3D), such that the adhesive defines at least a part of the first and second upper edge portions.
Regarding claims 63 and 64, Stolarski et al. teaches all of the limitations of claim 59 above. As shown in Figs. 3C-3D, when the laminated product pieces (100, 200; panels) are in a coupled position, the adhesive (350; expandable material layer) of one piece is partially covered and partially uncovered by an opposing upper edge of the adjacent panel.
Regarding claims 65 and 72, Stolarski et al. teaches all of the limitations of claim 59 above. As shown in Fig. 3B, the adhesive (350; expandable material layer) is applied as an adhesive bead into the groove (323), such that the thickness of the adhesive varies along its length, i.e., in the lateral direction.
Regarding claim 66, Stolarski et al. teaches all of the limitations of claim 59 above. As noted above, Stolarski et al. teaches that the anterior surface material (101) may be a laminated product prepared using a decorative paper layer having a desired pattern printed thereon which is impregnated with resin and laminated to one or more sheets of kraft paper impregnated with phenol formaldehyde resin, and an overlay layer bonded to the surface of the decorative layer that will be exposed in the final product [0017]. The decorative paper layer and overlay layer together are taken to correspond to the claimed decorative top section. The one or more sheets of kraft paper impregnated with phenol formaldehyde resin may be taken to correspond to the claimed upper layer, which comprises a moisture proof material.
Regarding claim 70, Stolarski et al. teaches all of the limitations of claim 59 above. As noted above, the decorative paper layer and the overlay layer of the anterior surface material (101, 201) taught by Stolarski et al. are taken together to correspond to the claimed decorative top section. The one or more sheets of kraft paper impregnated with phenol formaldehyde resin may therefore be taken to correspond to the claimed upper layer. Stolarski et al. further teaches that the posterior surface material (103, 203) may also include layers of kraft paper impregnated with phenolic resin ([0018]), such that the phenolic resin-impregnated layers of kraft paper may be taken to correspond to the claimed upper and lower layers which have an identical material composition.
Alternatively, the adhesive layers provided at the interface between the anterior surface material and the substrate material and at the interface between the posterior surface material and the substrate material may be taken to correspond to the claimed upper and lower layers which have an identical material composition. Stolarski et al. teaches that the adhesive material utilized for either or both of the interfaces is a urea-formaldehyde adhesive or a water-based adhesive such as PVA [0021].
Regarding claim 71, Stolarski et al. teaches all of the limitations of claim 59 above. Stolarski et al. further teaches that the adhesive material utilized for either or both of the interfaces between the substrate material and the anterior and posterior surface materials may be a urea-formaldehyde adhesive or a water-based adhesive such as PV, and that the posterior surface material may include impregnated paper layers, protective layers, a high pressure decorative laminate backer, or the like ([0018], [0021]).
When the adhesive layer arranged between the substrate material and the anterior surface material is taken to correspond to the claimed upper layer, and the posterior surface material is taken to correspond to the claimed lower layer, the material composition of the upper layer differs from the material composition of the lower layer.
Regarding claim 78, Stolarski et al. teaches all of the limitations of claim 59 above. As noted above, Stolarski et al. teaches a system of interconnected laminated product pieces (100, 200; panels), where the joined laminated products can be used for decorative flooring, counter and table tops, and wall panels (covering) ([0001], [0032], Figs. 3A-3F).
Claims 59-66, 69, 71, 72, and 78 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Bergelin et al. (US 2007/0175148, previously cited).
Regarding claim 59, Bergelin et al. teaches a set of moisture proof floorboards comprising a floorboard (1; decorative panel) to be joined with a similar floorboard (1’) at adjacent joint edges ([0032], Figs. 6a-6b). The floorboard comprises a wood-based core (5) and a resilient surface layer (4) which includes an uppermost layer of a transparent, hard and durable wear layer (16; transparent protective layer), an intermediate layer of a decorative layer (17) of plastic film, and the lowest layer of a reinforcement layer (18) made of an elastic material ([0031], Figs. 1b, 2a).
As shown in Fig. 6b, reproduced below, a moisture proof floorboard may comprise an expandable sealing agent (53’; expandable material layer) which is arranged in a sideways open groove (51) in the resilient layer and is configured to expand into a sideways open groove (52) in the resilient layer of an adjacent floor panel after the two panels are connected to each other by connecting means [0048]. Examples of an expandable sealing agent (53’) include materials which expand when exposed to moisture ([0048]), such that the expandable sealing agent is capable of expanding or swelling upon contact with moisture to create or improve a seal between panels in a coupled condition, where the expandable sealing agent is at least partially exposed at the interface in between the two panels, as shown in Fig. 6b below.
PNG
media_image1.png
261
393
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Bergelin et al. teaches that the floorboards each comprise a connecting means (8, 9, 10, 11, 15; first and second coupling parts) which is a mechanical locking system formed at least at two opposite edges (12a, 12b, 13a, 13b; first and second edges) ([0033], [0043], Fig. 1b).
When the decorative layer (17) and wear layer (16) are taken to correspond to the claimed decorative layer and transparent protective layer of the claimed decorative top section, the reinforcement layer (18) is taken to correspond to the claimed upper layer of the core, while the wood-based core (5) corresponds to the claimed lower layer, and the expandable sealing agent (53’) corresponds to the claimed expandable material layer which is arranged in between the upper layer and the lower layer.
Regarding claim 60, Bergelin et al. teaches all of the limitations of claim 59 above. As noted above, Bergelin et al. teaches that the expandable sealing agent (53’) is configured to expand into a sideways open groove (52) in the resilient layer of an adjacent floor panel after the two panels are connected to each other by the connecting means ([0048], Figs. 6b-6c), such that the expandable sealing agent (53’; expandable material layer) is positioned such that during expanding thereof, the top seam is tightened.
Regarding claim 61, Bergelin et al. teaches all of the limitations of claim 59 above. As shown in Figs. 6b-6c, the expandable sealing agent (53’) is partially covered by the wear layer (16; protective layer) of the resilient surface layer (4) at least at one of the edges of the floorboard.
Regarding claim 62, Bergelin et al. teaches all of the limitations of claim 59 above. As noted above, Bergelin et al. teaches that the expandable sealing agent (53’) is configured to expand into a sideways open groove (52) in the resilient layer of an adjacent floor panel after the two panels are connected to each other by the connecting means ([0048], Figs. 6b-6c), such that the expandable sealing agent defines at least a part of the first and second upper edge portions.
Regarding claims 63 and 64, Bergelin et al. teaches all of the limitations of claim 59 above. As shown in Figs. 6b-6c, when the floorboards (1, 1’; panels) are in a coupled position, the expandable sealing agent (53’) of one floorboard is partially covered by an opposing upper edge of the adjacent floorboard when in the expanded state, and is partially uncovered by an opposing upper edge of the adjacent floorboard when in the unexpanded state.
Regarding claim 65 and 72, Bergelin et al. teaches all of the limitations of claim 59 above. As shown in Figs. 6b-6c, the thickness of the expandable sealing agent (53’) varies along its length, i.e., in the lateral direction.
Regarding claim 66, Bergelin et al. teaches all of the limitations of claim 59 above and further teaches that the reinforcement layer (18; upper layer) is made of an elastic material and can be moisture-proof [0031].
Regarding claim 69, Bergelin et al. teaches all of the limitations of claim 59 above and further teaches that the wood-based core (5; lower layer) is preferably made of MDF or HDF ([0013], [0040]).
Regarding claim 71, Bergelin et al. teaches all of the limitations of claim 59 above. Bergelin et al. further teaches that the reinforcement layer (18; upper layer) is made of an elastic material and can be moisture-proof and that the wood-based core (5; lower layer) is preferably made of MDF or HDF ([0013], [0031], [0040]), such that the material composition of the upper layer differs from the material composition of the lower layer.
Regarding claim 78, Bergelin et al. teaches all of the limitations of claim 59 above. As noted above, Bergelin et al. teaches a set of moisture proof floorboards having a mechanical locking system ([0002], [0039]), where Figs. 1b-6c illustrate embodiments comprising multiple interconnected floorboards (1, 1’, 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 67, 68, and 73 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stolarski et al. (EP 1020504, previously cited) as applied to claim 59 above.
Regarding claim 67, Stolarski et al. teaches all of the limitations of claim 59 above. Although Stolarski et al. teaches that the adhesive (expandable material layer) may be applied into the groove, onto the tongue, or upon any of the surfaces of the pieces of material to be joined ([0036]), the reference does not expressly teach that a plurality of the water-swellable adhesive layers are provided on at least one upper edge portion.
It would, however, have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the laminated product piece of Stolarski et al. by including a plurality of adhesive layers on the upper edge portion thereof in order to ensure that the swellable adhesive material is distributed satisfactorily throughout the seam when the tongue of one panel is inserted into the groove of another. It is well settled that duplication of parts holds no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. See MPEP 2144.04(VI)(B).
Regarding claim 68, Stolarski et al. teaches all of the limitations of claim 59 above but does not expressly teach that each upper edge portion is provided with at least one expandable material layer.
Stolarski et al. does, however, teach that the adhesive (350; expandable material layer) may be deposited into the groove or onto the tongue of the pieces of material (100, 200) to be joined ([0036], Fig. 3B). Given that Stolarski et al. teaches that the adhesive serves to expand and fill all gaps of the seam (250) between adjacent pieces (100, 200) to prevent the infiltration of moisture ([0034]-[0035]), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the adhesive (350) on both of the tongue and groove portions (upper edge portions) of each laminated product in order to provide an adequate amount and distribution of the adhesive to prevent the infiltration of moisture through the gaps in the seam.
Regarding claim 73, Stolarski et al. teaches all of the limitations of claim 59 above and further teaches that the bead of adhesive (350; expandable material layer) is deposited into the groove (323) in sufficient volume to slightly protrude therefrom before the tongue is engaged ([0037], Fig. 3B). For example, a bead within the range of approximately 1/32 of an inch to approximately 1/8 of an inch when the laminated flooring product is approximately 5/16 of an inch thick is sufficient to provide the desired distribution of the adhesive material when the tongue is inserted into the groove [0037]. Stolarski et al. therefore teaches that the thickness of the adhesive (350) is within the range of about 1/32 inch to about 1/8 inch, equivalent to about 800 micron to about 3000 micron, 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).
Claims 74-76 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stolarski et al. (EP 1020504, previously cited) as applied to claim 59 above, and further in view of Kalwa et al. (EP 2918747, machine translation previously provided).
Regarding claim 74, Stolarski et al. teaches all of the limitations of claim 59 above but does not expressly teach that at least one upper edge portion is provided with a channel-shaped recessed portion as claimed.
Kalwa et al. teaches a panel (10; decorative panel) comprising a carrier substrate (100) and a decorative structure (110) applied to a substrate top surface (101) ([0033], Figs. 1-3). Kalwa et al. teaches that the panels (10) each have chamfers or bevels (61, 62; channel-shaped recessed portion) on edges (21, 22; upper edge portion) of the top surface (11) of the panel, where the surfaces (63, 64) of the chamfers are each coated with a chamfer sealing material (200; expandable material layer) ([0035], Fig. 2). Kalwa et al. teaches that the chamfers provide another design option in the production of panels, where the chamfers can create interesting decorative effects through targeted color variations in combination with the decors [0004]. As shown in Fig. 2, the chamfers (61, 62) are formed such that the adjoining upper edges of two coupled panels form a groove which represents a grout line, wherein a bottom portion of each chamfer is provided with the chamfer sealing material (200). Similar to Stolarski et al., Kalwa et al. teaches that the chamfer sealing material contains a material which swells upon coming into contact with a polar liquid such as water or an aqueous, where the swelling of the chamfer sealing material ensures that the joint (70) between the panels is sealed, protecting against the penetration of moisture in the area of the joint ([0023], [0036]-[0037]).
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 laminated product piece of Stolarski et al. by forming a chamfer (channel-shaped recessed portion) on an upper edge portion, where the chamfer is configured to form a groove representing a grout line when two panels are in the coupled condition, as taught by Kalwa et al., in order to impart the desired appearance and decorative aesthetic effects to the panel. It is well settled that features relating to ornamentation only which have no mechanical function cannot be relied upon to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. See MPEP 2144.04(I).
Regarding claim 75, Stolarski et al. teaches all of the limitations of claim 59 above. Although Stolarski et al. teaches that the adhesive (350; expandable material layer) may be an adhesive that cures upon exposure to moisture and that the adhesive provides a superior joint that is resistant to moisture ([0028], [0031]), the reference does not expressly teach that the adhesive comprises a hydrogel-forming water-swellable polymer.
Kalwa et al. teaches a panel (10; decorative panel) comprising a carrier substrate (100) and a decorative structure (110) applied to a substrate top surface (101) ([0033], Figs. 1-3). Kalwa et al. teaches that each panel has profile elements (17, 18), such as a tongue and a groove (40, 30), on end faces (15, 16) thereof in order to join two panels together ([0031], Figs. 1, 3). The panels (10) each have chamfers or bevels (61, 62) on edges (21, 22) of the top surface (11) of the panel, where the surfaces (63, 64) of the chamfers are each coated with a chamfer sealing material (200; expandable material layer) ([0035], Fig. 2). The chamfer sealing material contains at least one superabsorbent material, which swells upon coming into contact with a polar liquid such as water or an aqueous solution [0036]. Similar to Stolarski et al., Kalwa et al. teaches that the swelling of the chamfer sealing material ensures that the joint (70) between the panels is sealed, protecting against the penetration of moisture in the area of the joint ([0023], [0037]). Kalwa et al. further teaches that suitable superabsorbent materials usable as the chamfer sealing material include sodium polyacrylates and carboxymethyl guar gum ([0022]), which are hydrogel-forming water-swellable polymers.
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 laminated product piece of Stolarski et al. by selecting a hydrogel-forming water-swellable polymer as the adhesive material used to expand and fill in the gaps of the seam between adjacent panels, as suggested by Kalwa et al., given the art-recognized suitability of such materials for use as water-swellable materials for sealing gaps in joints between decorative panels.
Regarding claim 76, Stolarski et al. teaches all of the limitations of claim 59 above but does not expressly teach that the adhesive (350; expandable material layer) is colored.
Kalwa et al. teaches a panel (10; decorative panel) comprising a carrier substrate (100) and a decorative structure (110) applied to a substrate top surface (101) ([0033], Figs. 1-3). Kalwa et al. teaches that each panel has profile elements (17, 18), such as a tongue and a groove (40, 30), on end faces (15, 16) thereof in order to join two panels together ([0031], Figs. 1, 3). The panels (10) each have chamfers or bevels (61, 62) on edges (21, 22) of the top surface (11) of the panel, where the surfaces (63, 64) of the chamfers are each coated with a chamfer sealing material (200; expandable material layer) ([0035], Fig. 2). The chamfer sealing material contains at least one superabsorbent material, which swells upon coming into contact with a polar liquid such as water or an aqueous solution [0036]. Similar to Stolarski et al., Kalwa et al. teaches that the swelling of the chamfer sealing material ensures that the joint (70) between the panels is sealed, protecting against the penetration of moisture in the area of the joint ([0023], [0037]). Kalwa et al. further teaches that the chamfer sealing material may include color pigments which determine the optical appearance of the chamfers adapted to a desired decor ([0027], [0036]). The color of the chamfer sealing material layer is considered to be representative of at least one panel characteristic, as a desired meaning can be attributed to any color (e.g., a green color may be used to indicate recyclability or that the panel is eco-friendly).
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 laminated product piece of Stolarski et al. by including a pigment in the adhesive, as suggested by Kalwa et al., in order to impart the desired appearance and decorative aesthetic effects to the panel. It is well settled that features relating to ornamentation only which have no mechanical function cannot be relied upon to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. See MPEP 2144.04(I).
Claim 77 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stolarski et al. (EP 1020504, previously cited) as applied to claim 59 above, and further in view of D’Hondt et al. (US 2018/0155934, previously cited).
Regarding claim 77, Stolarski et al. teaches all of the limitations of claim 59 above but does not expressly teach that the first and second edges are impregnated with an impregnation agent.
D’Hondt et al. teaches a floor board (1) having a first pair of opposite edges (2, 3) and a second pair of opposite edges (4, 5), each pair of opposite edges having a pair of coupling parts (6) that form respective first and second locking systems ([0069]-[0070], Figs. 1-2). Similar to Stolarski et al., D’Hondt et al. teaches that a sealing agent (15) has been applied to one of the opposite side edges (2, 3) of the panel, where the sealing agent is based on a superabsorbing material that shields the joint between adjacent panels from moisture ingress ([0008], [0074]). D’Hondt et al. further teaches that the side edges (2, 3) are also treated with an impregnation agent (14) which provides for an additional binding of the wood fibers in the MDF/HDF material of the substrate, thus reducing swelling, in particular when applied in combination with the sealing agent ([0008], [0073], Fig. 2).
Given that Stolarski et al. also teaches that its substrate material (102) may be made of MDF ([0020]), 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 laminated product piece of Stolarski et al. by treating the opposite first and second edges of the panel with an impregnating agent, as taught by D’Hondt et al., in order to enhance the binding of the wood fibers in the core substrate, thus improving the moisture resistance and reducing the occurrence of swelling.
Response to Arguments
Response-Drawings
The previous objection to Fig. 3 is overcome by the replacement sheet filed April 15, 2026 in which reference numeral “31b” is changed to “32a”, consistent with the disclosure on page 53, lines 5-20 of the as-filed specification.
Response-Claim Objections
The previous objections to claims 59, 63-65, 68, 71, 72, and 74 are overcome by the Applicant’s amendments to the claims in the response filed April 15, 2026.
Response-Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The previous rejections of claims 59-78 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention are overcome by the Applicant’s amendments to claims 59, 65, 69, and 73-77 in the response filed April 15, 2026.
Response-Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
Applicant's arguments, see pages 9-11 of the remarks filed April 15, 2026, with respect to Stolarski et al. have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. In particular, the Applicant argues that Stolarski et al. fails to teach a laminated product comprising at least three material layers with at least one expandable material layer arranged between the upper layer and the lower layer because the adhesive in Stolarski et al. is separately provided and does not form one of the material layers of the core.
This argument is not persuasive. As explained in the prior art rejections above, Stolarski et al. teaches that the adhesive (350; expandable material layer) is deposited as a bead of adhesive into the groove (323) formed in the substrate material (202) of the laminated product piece (200; decorative panel) ([0037], Fig. 3B), such that the adhesive (350) is arranged between the upper and lower layers as described in the rejections above. The adhesive (350) is therefore interpreted as corresponding to the claimed at least one expandable material layer which satisfies the claimed configuration of being arranged in between upper and lower layers of the core. Given that the adhesive (350) is applied to the laminated product piece (200) prior to assembly of the tongue and groove panels (see Fig. 3B), the Applicant’s argument that the adhesive is separately provided and does not form one of the material layers of the core is not persuasive.
In light of the amendments to claim 1 requiring that the at least one expandable material layer is arranged in between the upper layer and the lower layer, the previous rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102 based on Kalwa et al. are withdrawn, and a new ground of rejection based on Bergelin et al. is presented above.
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/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1785
Prosecution Insights