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 (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.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 6 are objected to because of the following informalities:
The term “substrate material” should read -panel substrate material-. See:
claim 1 line 4 and line 6
claim 6 line 2
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-12 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.
In reference to claim 1:
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the step" in 3, 4, and 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for each limitation in the claim.
In reference to claim 2:
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the step" in 3, 4, and 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for each limitation in the claim.
In reference to claim 3:
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the step" in 3, 4, and 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for each limitation in the claim.
In reference to claim 4:
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the step" in 3, 4, and 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for each limitation in the claim.
Claims 5-12 are rejected for depending from an indefinite claim.
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.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Provoost (US20090252925A1).
Provoost discloses a method for manufacturing decorative panels (abstract), wherein the method comprises at least the following steps:
the step of providing a panel substrate material (para 0033, board-shaped substrate 2);
the step of depositing relief forming material on the substrate material with a first deposition device (Fig. 1 leftmost digital printing device 10);
the step of depositing decor forming material on the substrate material with a second deposition device (Fig. 1 rightmost digital printing device 10, para 0016);
wherein at least the step of depositing relief forming material and the step of depositing decor forming material are performed in a single movement of the panel substrate material relative to said first and second deposition device (para 0034 and Fig. 1 showing the printing process is performed in a linear fashion using multiple printing devices and Fig. 6. showing the print layers 9 deposited within the same horizonal plane, e.g. layer, as prior print layers 9).
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.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Provoost in view of McGee (US20170151714A1) and Nielsen (US20050074596A1).
Provoost discloses a method for manufacturing decorative panels (abstract), wherein the method comprises at least the following steps:
the step of providing a panel substrate material (para 0033, board-shaped substrate 2);
the step of depositing relief forming material on the panel substrate material with a first deposition device (Fig. 1 leftmost digital printing device 10);
the step of depositing decor forming material on the panel substrate material with a second deposition device (Fig. 1 rightmost digital printing device 10, para 0016).
Provoost does not disclose wherein both said first and second deposition device comprise nozzles projecting the respective material to the panel substrate material, and in that the nozzles of said first deposition device are at a larger distance to the surface of the panel substrate material, than the nozzles of said second deposition device. However, this would have been obvious in view of McGee and Nielsen. McGee teaches a method of additive manufacturing a multi-layer three-dimensional object (para 0013). McGee further depositing low resolution internal structure at a high rate and depositing a high-resolution shell at a slower speed to obtain faster production of 3D object while ensuring high definition is maintained (para 0033 stating the printer “has at least one printing nozzle”; Fig. 5) and wherein the smaller nozzle is used to print the high-resolution shell and a larger nozzle is used to form the low-resolution inner portion (para 0036). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine the method of Provoost with the low resolution internal and high-resolution external printing method of McGee in order to obtain a method which allows faster production of 3D object while ensuring high definition is maintained.
Additionally, Nielsen teaches the level of resolution depends on a number of factors including distance between the material dispensers and a target area, with high resolution using s minimal distance between the material dispensers and a target area (para 0023). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Provoost, as modified by McGee, by positioning the nozzles of the first deposition device at a larger distance to the surface than the nozzles of the second deposition device as nozzle distance is known variable for controlling print resolution. See MPEP §2144.05(II)(A).
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Provoost in view of McGee and Slep (US20170282450A1).
Provoost discloses a method for manufacturing decorative panels (abstract), wherein the method comprises at least the following steps:
the step of providing a panel substrate material (para 0033, board-shaped substrate 2);
the step of depositing relief forming material on the panel substrate material with a first deposition device (Fig. 1 leftmost digital printing device 10);
the step of depositing decor forming material on the panel substrate material with a second deposition device (Fig. 1 rightmost digital printing device 10, para 0016).
Provoost does not disclose wherein said first deposition device deposits relief forming material having a particle size larger than 20 micrometer and/or with a drop volume larger than 100 picoliter, and said second deposition device deposits decor forming material with a drop volume smaller than 50 picoliter.
However, this would have been obvious in view of McGee and Slep. McGee teaches a method of additive manufacturing a multi-layer three-dimensional object (para 0013). McGee further depositing low resolution internal structure at a high rate and depositing a high-resolution shell at a slower speed to obtain faster production of 3D object while ensuring high definition is maintained (para 0033 stating the printer “has at least one printing nozzle”; Fig. 5) and wherein the smaller nozzle is used to print the high-resolution shell and a larger nozzle is used to form the low-resolution inner portion (para 0036). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine the method of Provoost with the low resolution internal and high-resolution external printing method of McGee in order to obtain a method which allows faster production of 3D object while ensuring high definition is maintained.
Additionally, Slep teaches the droplet size affects the gradation of properties, specifically that smaller droplets tend to produce finer spatial resolution and that the volume of curable liquid droplet can be from 3-100 picoliters (para 0030, the claimed 100 picoliter and “smaller than 50 picoliter” falls within the range taught by the prior art). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Provoost, as modified by McGee, by controlling the droplet volume within the 3-100 picoliter range in order to control print resolution. See MPEP §2144.05(II)(A).
Claim(s) 4, 6, 9, 10, and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Provoost in view of McGee.
In reference to claim 4:
Provoost discloses a method for manufacturing decorative panels, wherein the method comprises at least the following steps:
the step of providing a panel substrate material (para 0033, board-shaped substrate 2);
the step of depositing relief forming material on the panel substrate material with a first deposition device (Fig. 1 leftmost digital printing device 10);
the step of depositing decor forming material on the panel substrate material with a second deposition device (Fig. 1 rightmost digital printing device 10, para 0016).
Provoost does not disclose wherein said first deposition device deposits relief forming material at a first resolution, while said second deposition deposits decor forming material at a second resolution higher than the first resolution. However, this is taught by McGee. McGee teaches a method of additive manufacturing a multi-layer three-dimensional object (para 0013). McGee further depositing low resolution internal structure at a high rate and depositing a high-resolution shell at a slower speed to obtain faster production of 3D object while ensuring high definition is maintained (para 0033 stating the printer “has at least one printing nozzle”; Fig. 5) and wherein the smaller nozzle is used to print the high-resolution shell and a larger nozzle is used to form the low-resolution inner portion (para 0036). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine the method of Provoost with the low resolution internal and high-resolution external printing method of McGee in order to obtain a method which allows faster production of 3D object while ensuring high definition is maintained.
Provoost, as modified, does not explicitly teach wherein the first resolution is below 100 dpi and the second resolution is above 200 dpi. However, McGee teaches utilizing a high resolution external exterior shell and a low-resolution interior in order to increase production speed while maintaining high resolution (para 0033). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the resolution of the décor forming material in order to maximize production while maintaining adequate resolution.
In reference to claim 6:
In addition to the discussion of claim 4, above, Provoost further discloses wherein the method comprises the step of depositing a clear coating material on the substrate material which allows for more or less of the formed protrusions to be present in the surface depending on the thickness of the clear coating material (paras 0035, 0046).
Modified Provoost does not disclose wherein said clear coating material is digitally applied with a resolution above 300 dpi, preferably above 900 dpi. However, “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). As applied to the instant application, and as discussed in reference to claim 56, McGee teaches utilizing a high resolution external exterior shell and a low-resolution interior in order to increase production speed while maintaining high resolution (para 0033). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the resolution of the clear coating material in order to maximize production while maintaining adequate resolution.
In reference to claim 9:
In addition to the discussion of claim 4, above, Provoost further discloses said panel substrate material is provided in the final shape, or about in the final shape (Figs. 1 and 3 showing the substrate 2 having the same shape, or about the same shape, at the beginning and end of the process).
In reference to claim 10:
In addition to the discussion of claim 4, above, Provoost further discloses wherein said panel substrate material comprises a uniformly colored top surface (para 0020, the bottom shades may form a uniform or not uniform background color of the pattern).
In reference to claim 11:
In addition to the discussion of claim 4, above, Provoost further discloses wherein said panel substrate material comprises a structured top surface (para 0021, performed on substrates already showing as much as possible the geometry of the final coated panel).
Claim(s) 5, 7, and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Provoost and McGee as applied to claims 4 and 6, above, and further in view of Wiegelmann (US20150030817A1).
In reference to claim 5:
In addition to the discussion of claim 4, above, modified Provoost does not teach wherein the method further comprises the step of incorporating hard particles in the background forming material. However, this is taught by Wiegelmann. Wiegelmann teaches a method for producing a panel having a décor and a three-dimensional structure (title, abstract). Wiegelmann further teaches applying a protective layer below the décor forming layer(s) and adding corundum particles to increase the abrasion resistance (paras 0040-0047; Fig. 2; para 0040 disclosing application head 7.1 may contain no particles while head 7.2 contains particles and para 0042 disclosing printing device 3 produces the decor). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the method of modified Provoost with the background and particles of Wiegelmann in order to increase abrasion resistance.
In reference to claim 7:
In addition to the discussion of claim 6, above, modified Provoost does not explicitly disclose wherein the method further comprises the step of curing said clear coating material, wherein said curing is controlled digitally. However, a rationale to support a conclusion that a claim would have been obvious is that all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 538, 416, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 (2007) (See MPEP 2143 and 2143.02). As applied to the instant application, Wiegelmann teaches a method for producing a panel having a décor and a three-dimensional structure (title, abstract). Wiegelmann further teaches using a digitally controlled curing mechanism to cure the layers of applied material (paras 0032, 0035-0037, 0040). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the method of modified Provoost with the digitally controlled curing of Wiegelmann because all of the claimed elements are known in the prior art and the combination yields predictable results, e.g. the clear layer is formed from known materials using known methods.
In reference to claim 12:
In addition to the discussion of claim 56, above, Provoost further discloses wherein the relief forming material is a polymer (para 0033 disclosing lacquer). Modified Provoost does not teach wherein the relief forming material is applied which comprises a polymer filled with at least 30 wt % of filler materials. However, “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). As applied to the instant application, Wiegelmann teaches a method for producing a panel having a décor and a three-dimensional structure (title, abstract). Wiegelmann further teaches adding corundum particles to increase the abrasion resistance (para 0047; Fig. 3). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add filler to the polymer material, and find an optimum or workable range of the filler, in order to improve abrasion resistance.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Provoost, McGee, and Wiegelmann as applied to claim 7, above, and further in view of Miller (US20170120520A1).
In addition to the discussion of claim 7, above, modified Provoost does not teach wherein said digitally controlled curing comprises applying different pinning and cure settings to said clear coating material. However, this is taught by Miller. Miller teaches a method of dispensing and curing a print material to vary a gloss level in a printed feature (abstract). Miller further teaches that curing parameters, including but not limited to, time delay between printing and curing, intensity of the UV light used for curing, speed of the curing lamp, and distance between the curing lamp and the printed material affect the gloss level achieved (para 0060. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the method of modified Provoost with the varying parameters of Miller in order to obtain a method which allowed for different levels of gloss in the final printed surface.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW L SWANSON whose telephone number is (571)272-1724. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 0800-1900 and every other Friday 0800-1600.
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, Phillip Tucker can be reached at (571)272-1095. 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.
/ANDREW L SWANSON/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1745
Prosecution Insights