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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendments, filed 11/18/2025, have been fully considered and reviewed by the examiner. The examiner notes the amendment to claim 1, the cancellation of claim 2 and 10 and the addition of new claims 14-18. Claims 1, and 3-9 and 11-18 are pending with claims 12-13 withdrawn from consideration.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/18/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicants argue that the examiner has not provided sufficient clarification as to the layers of the prior art. Examiner disagrees and notes that the citations to the appropriate paragraph in the reference were located in the prior office action. To assist applicant, as noted in the prior art rejection, Oldorff discloses the base coat and sealing system is aqueous, which meets the claimed aqueous requirement (see 0031). Oldorff discloses a base coat is applied (i.e. sealer), thereafter application of a primer (i.e. claimed preconditioner) and thereafter a color layer and protective covering layer are deposited onto the primer (each can individually read on claimed “ink”) , see 0045-0048. Theses layers are disclosed as being individually dried as claimed.
Applicant argues that the prior art does not disclose the same type of resin, the examiner disagrees as for at least the reasons set forth in the prior office action. Specifically, Oldorff discloses water based melamine resin coatings for the individual layers (0044-0048). At the very least, Oldorff discloses water based melamine resin coatings for the layers (0044-0048) and therefore using the same resin for the individual layers as claimed would have been obvious as predictable as Oldorff explicitly discloses that the melamine resin can be utilized for the layers. Applicant has not provided any evidence or rebuttal arguments that would meet their burden or rebutting the examiner’s proffered rejections.
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, 4, 6-9 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US Patent Application 20170120474 by Oldorff.
Claim 1: Oldorff discloses a fiberboard structure manufacturing method (0042, see e.g. MDF, HDF) comprising: forming an undercoat layer in which an aqueous sealer applied to a first surface of a substrate in which a fiberboard is used is dried on the first surface (0031,0044-0045);
applying an aqueous preconditioning liquid having a function of thickening an aqueous ink to the first surface on which the undercoat layer is formed (0030, primer) related to water based primer (0018);
and jetting the aqueous ink from an inkjet type jetting head to apply the aqueous ink to the first surface on which the aqueous preconditioning liquid is applied (0047)
Oldorff discloses the undercoat layer is formed on the first surface of the substrate by drying the aqueous sealer applied to the first surface of the substrate (0031,0044-0045). Oldorff discloses water based melamine resin coatings for the layers (0044-0048)
Claim 4: Oldorff discloses the aqueous sealer contains white coloring material particles (0045).
Claim 6-7: Oldorff discloses a coating liquid is applied to the first surface on which the aqueous ink is applied, including what can reasonably be considered non-contact process given the term its broadest reasonable interpretation (0048-0050).
Claim 8: Oldorff discloses a sealing layer, i.e. what can reasonably be considered a moisture proof layer, is formed on a second surface of the substrate opposite to the first surface (0050).
Claim 9: Oldorff discloses a grinding treatment (0050), which reasonably reads on the claimed sanding.
Claim 17: Oldorff discloses the aqueous primer is dried and the ink is applied (0044-0048).
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-4, 6-9, 17 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being obvious over US Patent Application 20170120474 by Oldorff.
Claim 1, 3-4, 6-9 and 17: While the examiner maintains the position as set forth above, at the least, Oldorff discloses water based melamine resin coatings for the layers (0044-0048) and therefore using the same resin for the individual layers as claimed would have been obvious as predictable as Oldorff explicitly discloses that the melamine resin can be utilized for the layers.
Claim 3: While the reference fails to disclose the relative thickness of the sealer layer and the ink layer, the thickness of the individual layers would have been recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have a direct effect on the final product (see e.g. 0053) and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide a sealer layer and ink layer with the desired and optimum thickness, including a sealer layer with a thickness greater than the ink layer, as such would have been obvious through routine experimentation to achieve the desired final product with the final properties. Additionally, the relative thickness is a selection from a finite number of possible solutions, sealer is thinner, the same or thicker, and the claim would have been obvious because “a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options with his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense.”
Claim 18: Oldorff fails to disclose the relative amount of the primer and ink; however, the amount of primer and ink are a result effective variable and determination of the relative amount of each layer would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to achieve the desired film properties. Additionally, the relative amount of the layers is selection from a finite number of predictable options (primer amount is more than ink, the amounts are the same, or the primer amount is less than the ink) and therefore selecting from a finite number of predictable solutions would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. The claim would have been obvious because “a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options with his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense.”
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being obvious over Oldorff taken collectively with EP 3365184, hereinafter EP 184.
Oldroff discloses all that is taught above and while the examiner maintains the position as set forth above, the examiner cites here EP 184, which discloses the quantity of the printed ink is less than the quantity of the prior coated layer (compare 0033 to 0046) and as such it would have been obvious to have provided a sealing layer thicker than the digital applied ink as the underlayers for ink are known to be thicker than the applied digital printed ink.
Claim(s) 5 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being obvious over Oldorff taken with WO 2020260044, hereinafter WO 044
Oldorff discloses all that is taught above; however, fails to disclose the aqueous ink includes white pigment particles; however, WO 044 discloses white pigments can be used as color pigments in the coating (“White pigments such as titanium dioxide T1O2 can again be used as color pigments.”) and inks enriched with white color pigments are preferably used, which are suitable for digital printing inks (“water-based inks enriched with white color pigments are preferably used, which are suitable for the digital printing inks”). Therefore, taking the references collectively using white ink as the aqueous ink would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention as WO 044 explicitly discloses including inks enriched with white color pigments are known for printing inks.
Claim 7: Oldorff discloses roller coating and WO 044 discloses printing system can be used for layer formation because the printing system significantly shorter than a roller device and thus saves space, energy and costs (“using digital printing is advantageous, as the printing system is significantly shorter than a roller device and thus saves space, energy and costs.”) and therefore applying the layers using a printing system would have been obvious to reap the benefits of saving “space, energy and costs.”
Claim(s) 9 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oldorff taken with CN 110685416, hereinafter CN 416.
Oldorff discloses all that is taught above and CN 416 discloses including decorative wood board, similar to that of Oldorff, and discloses sanding the wood board and coating to “improve the bonding force” between the coating layer and substrate surface (abstract) including sanding between layers deposited thereon (see Summary of invention) and therefore it would have been obvious to have included sanding treatment as claimed to reap the benefits of increasing the bonding force of the deposited layer and the surface (including prior applied and dried layers).
Claim(s) 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oldorff taken with JP 2001179895A, hereinafter JP 895 and JP 3623346, hereinafter JP 346.
Oldorff discloses all that is taught above and discloses resin as specifically articulated above; however, fails to disclose the claimed particles of acrylic resin or urethane resin. However, JP 895 discloses a similar decorative MDF for building products (see “ medium-density fiberboard (hereinafter abbreviated as MDF), a wood board such as a particle board”) similar to that as taught by Oldorff and discloses using thermosetting resin for forming the layers, including melamine or urethane (stating “The thermosetting resin used in the present invention includes phenol resin, urea resin, melamine resin, diallyl phthalate resin, guanamine resin, unsaturated polyester resin, polyurethane resin, epoxy resin, aminoalkyd resin, melamine-urea resin”) or including acrylic resin with melamine resin to extend the life of coating (“Further, by blending an acrylic component with the melamine resin, the apparent life until the decorative sheet impregnated with the semi-cured melamine resin is adhered to an adherend such as a particle board may be extended. “). Therefore, taking the references collectively and all that is known to one of ordinary skill in the art, it would have been obvious to use polyurethane as a known alternative to melamine resin. The claim would have been obvious because the substitution of one known element for another would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention.
Alternatively, it would have been obvious to have modified Oldorff discloses or melamine resin decorative panel include acrylic resin with the melamine to achieve the benefits as outlined by JP 895.
As for the requirement of particles, Oldorff with JP 895 fails to disclose the inclusion of particles. However, JP 346, also in the formation of a decorative wood (including fiberboard, see “a plywood, a wood fiber board, a particle board, a wafer board, or a composite board thereof is preferably used, and any of them can be impregnated with a resin” and aqueous dispersion with resin, i.e. dispersion is solid in liquid, i.e. particle (”The resin solution to be impregnated may be an aqueous solution, a solvent varnish, an emulsion, or the like, or may be a method of spraying solid resin powder. Among these, it is preferable to use those dissolved or dispersed in water”) and therefore taking the references collectively it would have been obvious to include resin particles as claimed as JP 346 discloses that resin particles in water is a known dispersion for applying thermosetting resin to particleboard/fiberboard.
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oldorff taken with CN 108136814, hereinafter CN 814.
Oldorff discloses all that is taught above and discloses seal layer with white pigment and a primer thereon and discloses a prime may be a transparent primer; however, fails to disclose the claimed primer includes white pigments. However, CN 814, also in the art of forming a decorative woodboard/fiberboard, similar to that as taught by Oldorff, and discloses including a primer coating prior to ink printing and discloses a white or transparent primer (“a primer (primer, primer) selected from the group consisting of transparent or colored”, “at least one colored pigment, particularly preferably, contains at least one white pigment”) and therefore taking the references collectively it would have been obvious to have modified Oldorff to include white pigments as such is suggested by CN 814 as an Oldorff discloses a white base of the ink printing layer and CN 814 discloses including a transparent primer or white primer would be predictable for the application of a printed pattern.
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 DAVID P TUROCY whose telephone number is (571)272-2940. The examiner can normally be reached Mon, Tues, Thurs, and Friday, 7:00 a.m. to 5:30 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, Gordon Baldwin can be reached at 571-272-5166. 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.
/DAVID P TUROCY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1718