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 .
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 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.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 48-65 in the reply filed on 6/23/2026 is acknowledged.
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 53, 54, 56 and 63 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.
Regarding claims 53 and 54, the phrase "e.g." renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Regarding claim 56, the phrases "such as" render the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Regarding claim 63, the phrases "such as" render the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
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.
Claims 48, 50, 52, 53, 55, 56, 58-65 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kawate et al. (WO 00/40648).
Regarding claim 48, Kawate et al. teach a panel (page 3, lines 1-5) comprising two units connected to each other (page 3, lines 1-5), wherein at least of said units is a bonding unit that provides adhesion between itself and at least one other said unit (page 3, lines 1-5, 15-21), wherein said adhesion is decreasable by a debonding activator (page 3, lines 1-5, 15-21), wherein said units comprise at least two base units (page 3, lines 1-5, 15-21), wherein said bonding comprises a glue which connects said at least two base units to each other (page 3, lines 1-5, 15-21); wherein said debonding activator comprises heat (page 3, lines 1-5, 15-21, page 10, lines 29-32).
Regarding claim 50, Kawate et al. teach wherein said units comprise at least two base units (page 3, lines 1-5, 15-21), wherein the at least two base units comprise a first base unit and a second base unit (page 3, lines 1-5, 15-21); wherein said bonding unit provides an adhesive bonding between the first base unit and the second base unit (page 3, lines 1-5, 15-21).
Regarding claim 52, Kawate et al. teach wherein the second base unit is selected from a synthetic based board or a mineral board (page 11, lines 27-31).
Regarding claim 53, Kawate et al. teach wherein said bonding unit comprises additives providing that said adhesive bonding is decreasable by the debonding activator (page 3, lines 1-5, 15-21, 25-30); wherein said additives are thermally expanding particles (page 3, lines 25-30).
Regarding claim 55, Kawate et al. teach wherein said at least two base units are layers connected one above the other, and said bonding unit is a glue layer comprising said glue, with said layer connected said at least two base units (page 3, lines 1-5, 15-21, page 9, lines 28-31).
Regarding claim 56, Kawate et al. teach wherein at least one base unit comprises a thickness of 5 to 200 µm which reads on Applicant’s claimed range of at most 5 mm (page 11, lines 27-31, page 12, lines 1-10).
Regarding claim 58, Kawate et al. teach wherein the said two or more units are layers, with said layers connected one above the other (page 3, lines 1-5, 15-21, page 11, lines 27-31, page 12, lines 1-10), and said bonding unit is a layer comprising a thermoset resin (page 3, lines 1-5, 15-21, page 4, lines 15-20, page 6, lines 20-25).
Regarding claim 59, Kawate et al. teach wherein the said two or more units comprise at least two bonding units (page 10, lines 3-7).
Regarding claim 60, Kawate et al. teach wherein the bonding unit comprises a glue and additives (page 3, lines 25-30), and wherein said additives are provided to decrease said adhesion when trigged by said debonding activator (page 3, lines 25-30, page 10, lines 29-32).
Regarding claim 61, Kawate et al. teach wherein the additives are expandable additives (page 3, lines 25-30, page 10, lines 29-32).
Regarding claim 62, Kawate et al. teach wherein the debonding activator comprises at least a steam with a temperature of 150°C which reads on Applicant’s claimed range of at least 195°C (page 4, lines 5-30) and wherein the additives are thermally expanding particles (page 3, lines 25-30).
Regarding claim 63, Kawate et al. teach wherein the debonding activator comprises at least heat (page 3, lines 1-5, 15-21) and wherein the additives are thermally expanding particles (page 3, lines 25-30).
Regarding claim 64, Kawate et al. teach an adhesive system for panels (page 2, lines 30-32, page 3, lines 1-5) comprising a unit (page 3, lines 1-5), wherein said adhesive system is suitable for providing adhesion between itself and at least one unit of a said panel (page 3, lines 1-5, 15-21), wherein the said adhesion is decreasable by a debonding activator selected from heat (page 3, lines 1-5, 15-21, page 10, lines 29-32).
Regarding claim 65, Kawate et al. teach wherein the adhesive system comprises a curable glue (page 3, lines 1-5, 25-30, page 4, lines 15-20).
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 51 and 54 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawate et al. (WO 00/40648) in view of Persson et al. (US Patent Application No. 2018/0370278).
Kawate et al. are relied upon as disclosed above.
Regarding claim 51, Kawate et al. teach wherein the first base unit provides a top layer to the panel and the second base unit provides a substrate to the panel (page 3, lines 1-5, 15-21).
Kawate et al. fail to teach wherein the top layer comprises a décor layer comprising a printed décor; a digitally printed décor, or wherein the top layer comprises a veneer, wherein the first base unit comprises a resin impregnated printed paper sheet, a printed polymer film, or a high pressure laminate (HPL). However, Persson et al. teach a panel (page 1, paragraph [0001]) comprising two units connected to each other (page 1, paragraphs [0010]-[0014]), wherein at least one of said units is a bonding unit that provides adhesion between itself and at least one other said unit (page 1, paragraphs [0010]-[0014]), wherein said units comprise at least two base units, wherein the at least two base units comprise a first base unit and a second base unit, wherein said bonding unit provides an adhesive bonding between the first base unit and the second base unit (page 1, paragraphs [0010]-[0014]), wherein the first base unit provides a top layer the panel and the second base unit provides a substrate to the panel (page 1, paragraphs [0010]-[0014]), wherein the top layer comprises a décor layer comprising a printed décor or a digitally printed décor (page 1, paragraphs [0010]-[0014], [0016], page 2, paragraphs [0026], [0027]), wherein the first base unit comprising an HPL (page 2, paragraph [0030]).
It would have been obvious to a person of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the top layer and first base unit of Persson et al. as the top layer and first base unit of Kawate et al. in order to provide customized decorative patterns (Persson et al., page 1, paragraph [0002]).
Regarding claim 54, Kawate et al. teach wherein said panel further comprises a said bonding unit comprising additives (page 3, lines 1-5, 15-21), said additives being thermally expanding particles (page 3, lines 15-21, 25-30), wherein said panel comprises a second said base unit comprising a thermoplastic based board (page 11, lines 27-30).
Kawate et al. fail to teach wherein said panel comprises a first base unit comprising a HPL or a CPL or one or more veneers. However, Persson et al. teach a panel (page 1, paragraph [0001]) comprising two units connected to each other (page 1, paragraphs [0010]-[0014]), wherein at least one of said units is a bonding unit that provides adhesion between itself and at least one other said unit (page 1, paragraphs [0010]-[0014]), wherein said panel comprises at least a first said base unit comprising a HPL (page 1, paragraphs [0010]-[0014], page 2, paragraph [0030]).
It would have been obvious to a person of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the substrate of Persson et al. as the first base unit of Kawate et al. in order to provide customized decorative patterns (Persson et al., page 1, paragraph [0002]).
Claim 57 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawate et al. (WO 00/40648) in view of Hedlund et al. (US Patent Application No. 2020/0215799).
Kawate et al. are relied upon as disclosed above.
Regarding claim 57, Kawate et al. fail to teach wherein said base units comprise cellulosic particles and said bonding unit connects said cellulosic particles. However, Hedlund et al. teach a panel comprising two units connected to each other (page 1, paragraphs [0021]-[0026]), wherein one of said units is a bonding unit that provides adhesion between itself and at least one other said unit (page 1, paragraphs [0021]-[0026]), wherein said unit comprises cellulosic particles, and said bonding unit connects said cellulosic particles (page 1, paragraphs [0021]-[0024], page 5, paragraphs [0121], [0122]).
It would have been obvious to a person of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the cellulosic particles of Hedlund et al. in the base unit of Kawate et al. in order to provide conventional fillers in the layer (Hedlund et al., page 5, paragraph [0122]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHINESSA GOLDEN whose telephone number is (571)270-5543. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday; 8:00 - 4:00 EST.
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 on 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Chinessa T. Golden/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1788 8/6/2026
Prosecution Insights