Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 19/027,631

FLOOR BOARD AND METHOD FOR MANUFACTURING SUCH FLOOR BOARDS

Non-Final OA §102§103§112
Filed
Jan 17, 2025
Examiner
POLLEY, CHRISTOPHER M
Art Unit
1785
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
UNILIN, BV
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
73%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 10m
To Grant
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 73% — above average
73%
Career Allow Rate
446 granted / 613 resolved
+7.8% vs TC avg
Strong +27% interview lift
Without
With
+26.8%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 10m
Avg Prosecution
30 currently pending
Career history
643
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.2%
-39.8% vs TC avg
§103
44.9%
+4.9% vs TC avg
§102
24.4%
-15.6% vs TC avg
§112
21.7%
-18.3% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 613 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103 §112
DETAILED ACTION Election/Restrictions Applicant’s election without traverse of group I, claims 1-19 in the reply filed on 2/18/26 is acknowledged. Claim 20 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 reply filed on 2/18/26. 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. Claim 10 is 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 claim 10, the phrase "for example" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) 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 1, 3, 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Bergelin et al (WO 2007081267 A1). Bergelin discloses a moisture proof floorboard comprising a resilient surface provided with a decorative groove and sealing means (abs). The floorboard is comprised of a wood based core comprising MDF or HDF (page 4 lines 26-29) and the resilient surface layer comprises a decorative layer (page 5 lines 1-5). The floor board further comprises a sealing agent that increases the moisture and water penetration into the joints at the edge (page 6 lines 4-9). The sealing agent comprises oil (page 13 lines 1-4). As to claim 3, Bergelin 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 claim 11, Bergelin discloses that the decorative layer is a wood veneer (page 5 lines 15-17). As to claim 12, Bergelin discloses the floor board comprises a lowered edge surface as seen in the figures for example 5b. 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). 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). 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. 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 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Segaert (US Publication 20090260313) and Bollini (DE 4020495 A1 which has been machine translated) in view of Meersseman et al (US Publication 20130104478). Segaert and Bollini render obvious claim 1 for the reasons noted above, however are silent to the MDF/HDF comprising MDI. 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 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). Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Segaert (US Publication 20090260313) and Bollini (DE 4020495 A1 which has been machine translated) in view of Thiers et al (US Publication 20100311854). Segaert 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 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) 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). 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 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). Conclusion 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
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jan 17, 2025
Application Filed
Mar 06, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12594689
METALLIC STONE SLABS, SYSTEMS, AND METHODS
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12583966
CURABLE RESIN, CURED PRODUCT THEREOF, RESIN COMPOSITION, AND METHOD FOR PRODUCING CURABLE RESIN
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12568161
DISPLAY DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 03, 2026
Patent 12558864
GLASS ARTICLE AND DISPLAY DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 24, 2026
Patent 12551307
STERILE ADAPTER DRIVE DISKS FOR USE IN A ROBOTIC SURGICAL SYSTEM
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 17, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
73%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+26.8%)
2y 10m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 613 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month