DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment filed 6/18/26 has been entered. Currently claims 1-8, 10-20 are pending, claim 9 is cancelled and claim 20 is withdrawn.
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.
Claims 1-8, 11, 12, and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Segaert (US Publication 20090260313) in view of Bollini (DE 4020495 A1 which has been machine translated) and of Meersseman et al (US Publication 20130104478).
As to claim 1 and 17, Segaert discloses a floor panel composing a wood based material that has profiled edge portions (abs). The floor panel comprises a substrate of wood based material that is MDF or HDF (paragraph 44). The floor panel also comprises a top layer that comprises a decorative layer 17 (paragraph 44). The floor panel further comprises an impregnation coating on the substrate that comprises a moisture-repellent or waterproofing agent over the entire edge portion (paragraph 138). However this reference is silent to the material of the impregnation coating.
Bollini discloses an impregnating agent that comprises an isocyanate modified linseed oil mixtiure used to impregnate a wood substrate to improve the wood against water, UV light, sun and cold (abs).
Meersseman discloses a floor panel comprised of a substrate that is MDF/HDF wherein the substrate is impregnated with an agent comprising MDI (paragraph 43).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Segaert and used the impregnating coating of Bollini to impregnate the wood substrate of Segaert at it would be a suitable alternative as well as protect the wood substrate against water, UV light, sun and cold.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Segaert and Bollini and used MDI within the impregnation agent as it’s a known material to impregnate wood as well as it helps to improve water repellency of the wood substrate (paragraph 9) as well as Bollini teaches the use of an isocyanate modified material as the impregnation agent.
It should be noted that Segaert teaches an exposed MDF/HDF material that has an exposed side edge with an impregnation coating with moisture resistant properties applied at the side edge. Further MDF/HDF materials will inherently comprises interstices between the wood fibers as that’s how the material is made and the impregnation agent will impregnate into these interstices.
As to claims 2 and 18, Bollini discloses that the oil is a linseed oil (abs).
As to claim 3, Bollini discloses the use of an oil within the sealing agent and this will read on an oil that is either boiled or unboiled as that will encompass all oils.
As to claims 4-7 and 19, Bollini discloses that the oil is a solvent that comprises an isocyanate which impregnates the edge (abs).
As to claim 8, Bollini discloses that the isocyanate modified linseed oil can be in an amount of 20% by weight.
As to claim 11, Segaert discloses that the decorative layer is formed of paper layers (paragraph 44).
As to claim 12, Segaert discloses that the floor board is formed with a lowered edge surface as seen in the figures.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Segaert (US Publication 20090260313), Meersseman et al (US Publication 20130104478) and Bollini (DE 4020495 A1 which has been machine translated) in view of Thiers et al (US Publication 20100311854).
Segaert, Meersseman and Bollini render obvious claim 1 for the reasons noted above, however are silent to average density of the MDF/HDF.
Thiers discloses a floor board made of MDF/HDF wherein the floor board has high and low density regions.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Segaert, Meersseman and Bollini and formed the MDF/HDF to have a high density region of at least 900 with an average density of the board being 750 kg/cubic meter since adjusting the density to have high and low zones of the boards can increase the strength and waterproofness while lowering the density can create break zones of the board (paragraph 24).
Claims 13-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Segaert (US Publication 20090260313), Meersseman et al (US Publication 20130104478) and Bollini (DE 4020495 A1 which has been machine translated) in view of Swallen (Zein a new industrial protein).
As to claims 13 and 14, Segaert discloses a floor panel composing a wood based material that has profiled edge portions (abs). The floor panel comprises a substrate of wood based material that is MDF or HDF (paragraph 44). The floor panel also comprises a top layer that comprises a decorative layer 17 (paragraph 44). The floor panel further comprises an impregnation coating on the substrate that comprises a moisture-repellent or waterproofing agent over the entire edge portion (paragraph 138). However this reference is silent to the material of the impregnation coating.
Bollini discloses an impregnating agent that comprises an isocyanate modified linseed oil mixtiure used to impregnate a wood substrate to improve the wood against water, UV light, sun and cold (abs).
Meersseman discloses a floor panel comprised of a substrate that is MDF/HDF wherein the substrate is impregnated with an agent comprising MDI (paragraph 43).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Segaert and used the impregnating coating of Bollini to impregnate the wood substrate of Segaert at it would be a suitable alternative as well as protect the wood substrate against water, UV light, sun and cold.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Segaert and Bollini and used MDI within the impregnation agent as it’s a known material to impregnate wood as well as it helps to improve water repellency of the wood substrate (paragraph 9) as well as Bollini teaches the use of an isocyanate modified material as the impregnation agent.
It should be noted that Segaert teaches an exposed MDF/HDF material that has an exposed side edge with an impregnation coating with moisture resistant properties applied at the side edge. Further MDF/HDF materials will inherently comprises interstices between the wood fibers as that’s how the material is made and the impregnation agent will impregnate into these interstices.
Swallen discloses the use of Zein as a coating agent for wood based materials that will help increase the water resistance as well as oil and grease of the substate.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Segaert and used the impregnating coating of Bollini and Meersseman in combination with Zein to impregnate the wood substrate of Segaert at it would be a suitable alternative as well as protect the wood substrate against water, UV light, sun and cold as well as grease and oil.
As to claim 15, Bollini discloses an impregnating agent that comprises an isocyanate.
As to claim 16, Segaert discloses that the decorative layer is formed of paper layers (paragraph 44).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/18/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s argue that newly amended claims 1, 13 and 17 that the composition of Bollini is suitable for treatment of exposed wood and the MDF/HDF comprising interstices. MDF/HDF boards comprise interstices between the board and the amount of interstices relates to the density of the board. The impregnation agent of Bollini will impregnate the side edge or any surface of the wood and will provide increased benefits to the wood product such as moisture resistance which is a problem being solved by Segaert by proving the impregnation agent on the side of the MDF/HDF board and therefore the coating of Bollini would be a suitable coating for Segaert as its solving the same problem. Further the claims do not require that the interstices be impregnated with the oil coating and only require that the wood has interstices and since MDF/HDF will inherently have interstices that limitation is met.
As to Swallen, the same concept applies above in that the coating of Segaert is silent to materials used to impregnate the wood material. Swallen is directed to using Zein in the impregnation of wood materials to increase water resistance and therefore the use of this material in the coating would solve the problem of Segaert.
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 CHRISTOPHER M POLLEY whose telephone number is (571)270-5734. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday from 8am till 4:30 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 5712721291. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER M POLLEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1785
Prosecution Insights