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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-5, 7, 10, 12-14, and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dohring (EP 1937476) in view of Nollet (US 2006/0144004).
As to claim 1, Dohring discloses a method for forming an abrasion resistant board 9see abstract, 0001) which comprises providing a substate (see plate- 1 of Fig. 1- 0023 of the translation); a printed pattern is applied to the plate (decoration – see 0023-0024 of the translation); a first UV coating (base varnish) is applied to the printed pattern (see 0028, 0032, and 46 of the translation); particles of corundum are scattered over the first UV coating layer (abrasion resistant particles – abrasion is a form of wear and type of scratch – see 0028, 0048); performing a film pressing treatment so that the particles are pressed into the UV coating layer (see 0017, 0052); the pressing step requires an overlay layer between the coated plate and the press to protect the press from being damaged (see 0018).
Dohring fails to teach the overlay between the substrate and press is a release film as required by claim 1.
Nollet et al. teaches a process for forming a floor panel where a substrate having a décor and a layer of synthetic material are pressed together (see abstract, 0069). Nollet et al. teaches the use of a release paper between the press plate and the synthetic material of the floor panel (see 0075) to prevent adhesion between the two materials (see 0075).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the process of Dohring to include the release paper between the press and floor panel as taught by Nollet. One would have been motivated to do so since both are directed to forming floor panels using a pressing process while preventing damage of the press and Nollet teaches an operable method of preventing such damage by the use of a release paper.
As to claim 2, Dohring states the powder is partially embedded into the upper surface of the wear-resistant layer (see 0029).
As to claim 4, the coating amount of the UV coating is 20-50 g/m2 (see 0047 of Dohring).
As to claim 5, Dohring teaches a topcoat is applied (surface treatment of the UV resist layer – see 0050).
As to claim 7, the pressing step requires an overlayer between the coated plate and the press to protect the press from being damaged (see 0018 of Dohring).
As to claim 10, the printed layer is formed via indirect gravure printing (see 0045 of Dohring).
As to claim 12, the wear/scratch- resistant powder is formed of aluminum oxide (see 0048 of Dohring).
As to claim 13, Dohring discusses pressing occurring using an embossing press (see 0019).
As to claim 14, Dohring teaches the layer is pressed, and teaches the embedding of the particles within the layer. During the pressing process, the surface conforms to the press plate surface therefore resulting in a generally flat surface finish unless an embossed plate is used. Forming the flat upper surface on the wear-resistant layer would have been an obvious result of pressing the panel layers using a flat press surface.
As to claim 17, Dohring teaches scattering the powder prior to curing the UV coating layer, and then fulling curing after the pressing step (see 0048-52).
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dohring (EP1937476) in view of Nollet (US 2006/0144004) as applied to claim 1 above, in further view of Vermeulen (US 2014/0147641).
The teachings of Dohring and Nollet as applied to claim 1 are as stated above.
Dohring and Nollet fail to teach the application of a transparent wear layer on the printed pattern prior to the UV coating as required by claim 3.
Vermeulen is directed to forming a laminated cover layer and polymeric composite layer for flooring (see abstract, 0003). Vermeulen discloses a substrate having a decorative pattern is coated with a UV coating having wear resistance (see 0039) and further teaches the application of a polyurethane coating layer to further improve abrasive and scratch resistance prior to the application of a UV coating (see 003). Vermeulen does not explicitly state the coating is transparent but does state the importance of keeping the decoration pattern visible (see 0039).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the process of Dohring and Nollet to include the polyurethane layer of Vermeulen prior to applying the UV coating in order to further improve the wear resistance. One would have been motivated to do so since both are directed to forming wear resistant floor panels formed with a printed décor layer and UV coating having wear particles, while Vermeulen further teaches additional layers to further improve the wear resistance. It would have been further obvious to ensure the layer was transparent to make sure the décor layer was visible.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dohring (EP 1937476) in view of Nollet (US 2006/0144004) as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Ma et al. (CN 113649248).
The teachings of Dohring and Nollet as applied to claim 5 are as stated above.
Dohring and Nollet fail to teach performing a surface coating treatment that comprises coating a second UV coating and then performing a matt treatment by excimer lamp and a curing unit.
Ma et al. discloses a process for forming a matt film by applying a UV coating, precuring the coating under UV light; and then treating with excimer light at a wavelength of 172 nm to form the matt film (See abstract). Ma et al. further teaches the substrate receiving the coating can be flooring having a decorative layer and the UV coating (see Embodiments). Ma et al. states the resulting layer has “excellent surface touch texture” and a visual sensing effect (see abstract).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the process of Dohring modified by Nollet to include the step of treating the UV topcoat with the excimer light as taught by Ma et al. to form the matte surface. One would have been motivated to do so since both are directed to forming flooring having a decorative layer and a UV topcoat, where Ma et al. teaches the good surface texture and visual effects of forming a matte surface.
Claim(s) 8-9, and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dohring (EP1937476) in view of Nollet (US 2006/0144004) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Dong et al. (US 20020136862).
The teachings of Dohring and Nollet as applied to claim 1 are as stated above.
Dohring and Nollet fail to teach the film is arranged in the film pressing device or the release film is fed through the film pressing device as required by claims 8-9.
Dong et al. teaches a process for producing laminated flooring panels in which a release paper is positioned in the press during lamination (see 0162, 0175). The panels have a printed film as well as a wear overlay (see 0174). The panels are fed through a press to laminate the panel. The release paper prevents adhesion of the panel with the press (see 0121). Dong et al. further teaches the release paper can be fed through the press during lamination (see 0162).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the release paper arrangement taught by Dong et al. into the process of Dohring and Nollet. One would have been motivated to do so since both are directed to laminated would panel flooring and the use of release layers to prevent damage to the press while Dong et al. teaches an operable method of using release layers when laminating flooring materials.
As to claim 15, Dong et al. teaches passing the panel through the pressing device, which would result in the pressing step being performed over the entire surface of the panel, therefore, it would have been obvious that essentially the entire wear layer is subjected to the pressing treatment.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dohring (EP1937476) in view of Nollet (US 2006/0144004) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Denk et al. (US 2018/0080867).
The teachings of Dohring and Nollet as applied to claim 1 are as stated above.
Dohring and Nollet fail to teach forming the printed pattern by applying a white coating on the substrate by printing as required by claim 11.
Denk et al. discloses a process for forming a floor panel comprising a carrier plate, forming a base coat using white pigments (see 0059), printing a decorative layer over the base coat (see 0063), and forming a wear layer that comprises of a transparent film impregnated with wear resistant particles (see 0048).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the process of Dohring and Nollet to include the white basecoat as taught by Denk et al. One would have been motivated to do so since both are directed to forming printed plates used in flooring having a wear resistant layer thereon, where Denk further teaches the use of a base coat prior to printing in order to provide desired color to the flooring.
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dohring (EP1937476) in view of Nollet (US 2006/0144004) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Klepsch (US 2016/0023443).
The teachings of Dohring and Nollet as applied to claim 1 are as stated above.
Dohring and Nollet fail to teach at least partially curing the UV coating layer during the film pressing treatment as required by claim 16.
Klepsch discloses a multi-layered composite body having a UV cured cover layer used for laminate flooring (see abstract). Klepsch teaches UV irradiation can occur at the same time of pressing the composite body (see 0020). Klepsch further teaches the use of a UV transparent medium allowing for the curing of the UV coating layer (see 0019).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the process of Dohring and Nollet to include the step of curing the layer while pressing as taught by Klepsch. One would have been motivated to do so since both references are directed to forming floor panels which are multilayer including layers of UV cured coatings and pressed such panels to form laminates, where Klepsch further teaches an operable method of forming such laminates by combining the curing and pressing step.
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dohring (EP1937476) in view of Nollet (US 2006/0144004) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Carling et al. (US 6562414).
The teachings of Dohring modified by Nollet as applied to claim 1 are as stated above.
Dohring modified by Nollet fail to teach semi-curing the first UV coating to form a semi-cured first UV coating, and before scattering or the wear resistant and scratch resistant powder, applying additional UV coatings on the semi-cured first UV coating as required by claim 18.
Carling et al. teaches method for applying protective UV-curable coatings to floor times in which a first UV curable polyurethane coating is applied and exposed to UV radiation to only partially cure the first coating, after which a second UV curable polyurethane coating is applied atop the partially cured first coating (see col. 6, lines 31-col. 8, line 56). Carling states the first layer is applied to act as a sealant and a second layer is applied to provide scratch- resistance (see col.8, line 45-50). Carling further explains that the first coating is only partially cured before application of the second coating because fully curing the first UV polyurethane makes it inert and harder for a second coating to adhere thereto (see col. 8, line 57 – col. 9, line 4).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the process of Dohring and Nollet by forming the UV coating layer according to the Carling’s multilayer UV-coating method of applying a first UV coating, partially curing the first UV coating, and applying an additional UV coating thereon before proceeding with Dohring’s subsequent scattering of the wear/scratch resistant particles. One would have been motivated to do so to obtain the benefit of providing sealing properties as well as promoting adhesion between successive UV coating layers as taught by Carling.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 19 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the cited prior art fails to teach or suggest the limitations of claim 19, especially the method being free of applying any other UV coating between the scattering of the wear resistant and scratch resistant powder and the performing of the film pressing treatment. .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07/09/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that Dohring relies upon an overlay-based laminate construction and does not disclose pressing a release film against a UV coating layer containing scattered wear-resistant powder as to embed the powder therein. However, Dohring disclosure is not limited to the conventional overlay laminate arrangement characterized by Applicant. Dohring expressly teaches scattering abrasion resistant particles onto a still wet lacquer coating and subsequently employing a removable structuring film in connection with the coated surface. Dohring further expressly teaches that the film causes protruding abrasion-resistant particles to be pressed into the paint, thereby achieving proper embedding of the abrasion-resistant particles. Dohring itself teaches the claimed functional relationship of employing a film in connection with a particle-containing coating such that the film pressing causes the abrasion resistant particles to be pressed into the coating. Nollet is relied upon for the additional teaching of employing a release material at the pressing interface. Nollet teaches positioning the release paper between a press palate and a synthetic material surface during pressing for the express purpose of minimizing adhesion between the press plate and the synthetic material.
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art to employ the removable film used in Dohring’s particle embedding treatment as a release film, as taught by Nollet, in order to obtain Nollet’s expressly recognized benefit of minimizing adhesion at the pressing interface while retaining Dohring’s function of pressing the abrasion-resistant particles into the coating. The modification would not require elimination of Dohring’s particle embedding process; rather, it would use a known release material for its known non-stick function in Dohring’s existing film/coating pressing interface.
Applicant further argues that Dohring applies a topcoat after scattering the abrasion-resistant particles. Claim 1 does not recite that the film must contact the first UV coating immediately after scattering, nor does claim 1 exclude the application of an additional coating between scattering and film pressing. Claim 1 requires pressing a release film against a UV coating layer comprising the wear-resistant and scratch-resistant powder such that the powder is pressed into the UV coating layer. Dohring’s film treatment presses protruding particles into its coating.
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 Cachet I Proctor whose telephone number is (571)272-0691. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7-3 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, Michael Cleveland can be reached at 571-272-1418. 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.
/CACHET I. PROCTOR/
Examiner
Art Unit 1712
/CACHET I PROCTOR/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1712
Prosecution Insights