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 .
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed. Note the claims are directed to a decorative panel and not a method.
The following title is suggested: A DECORATIVE PANEL
Claim Objections
Claims 94-111 are objected to because of the following informalities:
With regard to claim 94: Line 1 of the claim, it appears the limitation “the panel” should be --the decorative panel-- for consistency of the claim language.
With regard to claim 96: Lines 1-2 of the claim, it appears the limitation “the panel” should be --the decorative panel-- for consistency of the claim language.
With regard to claim 107: Lines 1 and 3 of the claim, it appears the limitation “the panel” should be --the decorative panel-- for consistency of the claim language. Lines 8 and 10 of the claim, it appears the limitation “the aforementioned coupling parts” should be --the coupling parts-- for consistency of the claim language.
With regard to claim 108: Line 2 of the claim, it appears the limitation “a tongue” should be --the tongue-- for consistency of the claim language. Lines 2 of the claim, it appears the limitation “a groove” should --the groove-- for consistency of the claim language. Line 2 of the claim, it appears the limitation “an upper lip” should be --the upper lip-- for consistency of the claim language. Line 2 of the claim, it appears the limitation “a lower lip” should be --the lower lip-- for consistency of the claim language. Line 3 of the claim, it appears “these tongue and groove” should be –the tongue and the groove-- for consistency of the claim language. Lines 3-4 of the claim, it appears the limitation “the aforementioned vertical direction” should be --the vertical direction-- for consistency of the claim language. Line 5 of the claim, it appears the limitation “groove” should be --the groove-- for consistency of the claim language.
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 99 and 107-111 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.
With regard to claim 99: Line 1 of the claim, the limitation “the decorative printing” lacks sufficient antecedent basis. For the purpose of examination, the limitation is considered to be directed to –a decorative printing--. Line 2 of the claim, the limitation “the surface” lacks sufficient antecedent basis. For the purpose of examination, the limitation is considered to be directed to --a surface--.
With regard to claim 107: Line 5 of the claim, the limitation “the coupled state” lacks sufficient antecedent basis. For the purpose of examination, the limitation is considered to be directed to --a coupled stated--. Lines 5-7 of the claim, each instance of the limitation “the plane” lacks sufficient antecedent basis. Lines 6-7 of the claim, each instance of the limitation “the coupled panels” lacks sufficient antecedent basis. For the purpose of examination, the limitation is considered to be directed to --the two panels--. Lines 6-7 of the claim, the limitation “the coupled edges” lacks sufficient antecedent basis. For the purpose of examination, the limitation is considered to be directed to --the respective edges--.
With regard to claim 108: The limitation “the mechanical coupling parts” found in line 1 of the claim lacks sufficient antecedent basis.
With regard to claim 109: Line 2 of the claim, it’s unclear as to what applicant is referring to when reciting “the imitation of a joint” as it would appear an actual joint would be formed. Line 2 of the claim, the limitation “the coupled edges” lacks sufficient antecedent basis. For the purpose of examination, the limitation is considered to be directed to --the respective edges--. Lines 2-3 of the claim, it’s unclear if the limitation “the panel on a second panel of this kind” is referencing the previously two panels. For the purpose of examination, the limitation is considered to be directed to --the two panels--.
Claims 99 and 107-111 are examined as best understood.
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) 94-95, 97, 99, 103 and 107-111 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lombaert et al. (US 2019/0383030 A1).
With regard to claim 94: Lombaert discloses a decorative panel (figs. 1-4), wherein the decorative panel comprises at least a substrate (14’, 15, 14” or 21’, 22, 22”) comprises a limestone matrix (limestone filler) (par. [0031] and [0033])), wherein the substrate (14’, 15, 14” or 21’, 22, 22”) has a thickness T less than 60 mm (panel as whole is between 4.0 mm and 10.0 mm) (par. [0043]).
The decorative panel being “obtained by carbonation” is a product by process limitation.
“[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Marosi, 710 F.2d 799, 218 USPQ 289 (Fed. Cir. 1983) and In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 227 USPQ 964 (Fed. Cir. 1985). See also MPEP § 2113.
With regard to claim 95: Lombaert et al. discloses that the substrate (14’, 15, 14” or 21’, 22, 22”) comprises wood fibres (par. [0049]).
With regard to claim 97: Lombaert et al. discloses that the substrate (14’, 15, 14” or 21’, 22, 22”) in addition is bound by a polymer binder (thermoplastic layer) (par. [0049]).
With regard to claim 99: Lombaert et al. discloses that a decorative printing is formed in register with a texture in a surface of the decorative panel (par. [0011]).
With regard to claim 103: Lombaert et al. discloses that the decorative panel comprises a decorative top layer, wherein the decorative top layer comprises a decor layer (13) laminated on the substrate (14’, 15, 14”), wherein the decor layer (13) comprises a decorative print (12) (par. [0023]).
With regard to claim 107: Lombaert et al. discloses that the decorative panel is rectangular (fig. 4; par. [0055]), whether square or elongated (par. [0055]),
wherein the decorative panel is provided with coupling parts (3, 5) at least at two opposite edges, which allow to couple two panels of this kind to each other at the respective edges,
wherein a locking in a coupled state exists in the vertical direction perpendicular to a plane (coplanar with top surfaces) of the two panels and in the horizontal direction perpendicular to the coupled edges and in the plane of the two panels (fig. 2; par. [0040]));
wherein the coupling parts (3, 5) include at least a male part (3) in the form of a tongue (3) (fig. 2);
wherein the coupling parts (3, 5) include at least one female part (5) in the form of a groove (5), wherein this groove (5) is flanked by a lower lip and an upper lip (fig. 2).
With regard to claim 108: Lombaert et al. discloses that the coupling parts (3, 5) are mainly designed as the tongue (3) and the groove (5) delimited by an upper lip and a lower lip (fig. 2), wherein the tongue (3) and the groove (5) are primarily responsible for the locking in the vertical direction (fig. 2), and wherein the tongue (3) and the groove (5) comprise locking parts (4, 6), wherein these locking parts (4, 6) are mainly responsible for the locking in the aforementioned horizontal direction (fig. 2).
With regard to claim 109: Lombaert et al. discloses that the coupling parts (3, 5) are designed so that a joint is formed at the respective edges of the two panels.
With regard to claim 110: Lombaert et al. discloses at least a part of the at least two opposite edges comprises a water-repellent coating (wear layer) (par. [0027]).
With regard to claim 111: Lombaert discloses that the decorative panel comprises a plate (14’, 15, 14”, 21’, 22, 22”) (figs. 1-2) ; wherein the plate (14’, 15, 14”, 21’, 22, 22”) comprises at least the substrate (14’, 15, 14”) and a carrier plate (21’, 22, 22”); wherein the coupling parts are mainly realized in the carrier plate (21’, 22, 22”) (fig. 2; par. [0030], [0042], [0043]). Note that given the disclosed thickness ranges of Lombaert, the coupling part are capable of being mainly realized in the carrier plate.
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.
Claim(s) 96 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lombaert et al. (US 2019/0383030 A1) in view of Southern et al. (US 2003/0115829 A1).
With regard to claim 96: Lombaert et al. discloses the panel can be adhered to a subsurface (par. [0043])
Lombaert et al. does not disclose that the bottom of the panel comprises a relief.
However, Southern et al. discloses a panel comprising reliefs (14, 15) on a bottom for engaging adhesive (figs. 1-2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the decorative panel of Lombaert et al. to have the bottom of the panel to comprise reliefs such as taught by Southern et al. in order to provide greater surface area of contact for engaging adhesive at to further mitigate movement. No new or unpredictable results would be obtained from modifying the decorative panel of Lombaert et al. to have the bottom of the panel to comprise reliefs such as taught by Southern et al. Such a combination, to one of ordinary skill in the art, would have a reasonable expectation of success, and would be based on ordinary skill and common sense before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 100 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lombaert et al. (US 2019/0383030 A1)
With regard to claims 100: Lombaert et al. discloses that the decorative panel comprises a decorative top layer (11-13) comprising a print (12) (par. [0023]).
Lombaert et al. does not disclose that the decorative top layer is at least obtained in that the substrate comprises colour pigments or other fillers for decorative application; wherein these colour pigments or other fillers form a visible decoration on a surface of the decorative panel.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp, as the selected option was one of a finite number of available means of forming the print for forming a desired aesthetic. No new or unpredictable results would be obtained from modifying the decorative print of Lombaert et al. to comprise colour pigments or other fillers form a visible decoration on a surface of the decorative panel to provide a desired aesthetic. Such a combination, to one of ordinary skill in the art, would have a reasonable expectation of success, and would be based on ordinary skill and common sense before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 98, 101-102 and 104-106 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lombaert et al. (US 2019/0383030 A1) in view of Baert et al. (US 2021/0363759 A1).
With regard to claims 98 and 101: Lombaert et al. discloses that the decorative panel comprises a decorative top layer (11-13).
Lombaert et al. does not disclose that the decorative top layer is at least obtained by a decorative printing of the substrate.
However, Baert discloses a decorative top layer (wear layer and décor layer) at least obtained by a decorative printing of a substrate (core layer) (par. [0010] and [0020]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the decorative panel of Lombaert et al. to substitute the decorative layer to at least be obtained by a decorative printing of the substrate with an overlying wear layer such as taught by Baert et al. yielding the predictable results of providing a decorative effect for a desired aesthetic. No new or unpredictable results would be obtained from modifying the decorative panel of Lombaert et al. to substitute the decorative layer to at least be obtained by a decorative printing of the substrate with an overlying wear layer such as taught by Baert et al. Such a combination, to one of ordinary skill in the art, would have a reasonable expectation of success, and would be based on ordinary skill and common sense before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 101, Examiner notes that the decorative printing of the substrate is considered to be functionally equivalent to colouring of the substrate.
With regard to claim 102: Lombaert et al. discloses that the decorative panel comprises a decorative top layer (11-13).
Lombaert et al. does not disclose that the decorative top layer comprises a layer of stone veneer, or a layer of porcelain, or a layer of ceramic, glued to the substrate.
However, Baert discloses a decorative top layer (wear layer and décor layer) comprising a layer of stone veneer glued to a substrate (core layer) (par. [0010] and [0020]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the decorative panel of Lombaert et al. to substitute the decorative layer to comprise a layer of stone veneer glued to the substrate with an overlying wear layer such as taught by Baert et al. yielding the predictable results of providing a decorative effect for a desired aesthetic. No new or unpredictable results would be obtained from modifying the decorative panel of Lombaert et al. to substitute the decorative layer to comprise a layer of stone veneer glued to the substrate with an overlying wear layer such as taught by Baert et al. Such a combination, to one of ordinary skill in the art, would have a reasonable expectation of success, and would be based on ordinary skill and common sense before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
With regard to claim 104: Lombaert et al. does not disclose that the decor layer is or comprises a HPL (High Pressure Laminate), which is glued to the substrate by an adhesive.
However, Baert discloses a decorative top layer (wear layer and décor layer) comprising a layer of a HPL, which is glued to a substrate (core layer) by an adhesive (par. [0010] and [0020]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the decorative panel of Lombaert et al. to substitute the decorative layer to comprise a layer of HPL glued to the substrate with an overlying wear layer such as taught by Baert et al. yielding the predictable results of providing a decorative effect for a desired aesthetic. No new or unpredictable results would be obtained from modifying the decorative panel of Lombaert et al. to substitute the decorative layer to comprise a layer of HPL glued to the substrate with an overlying wear layer such as taught by Baert et al. Such a combination, to one of ordinary skill in the art, would have a reasonable expectation of success, and would be based on ordinary skill and common sense before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
With regard to claim 105: Lombaert et al. does not disclose that the decor layer is or comprises a printed sheet of paper impregnated with resin; wherein the decor layer is laminated with an adhesive layer or with the resin of the decor layer on the substrate.
However, Baert discloses a decorative top layer (wear layer and décor layer) comprising a layer of a HPL, which is glued to a substrate (core layer) by an adhesive (par. [0010] and [0020]). Examiner notes that HPL is known to be impregnated (resin-soaked) paper layers formed under heat and pressure.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the decorative panel of Lombaert et al. to substitute the decorative layer to comprise a layer of HPL glued to the substrate with an overlying wear layer such as taught by Baert et al. yielding the predictable results of providing a decorative effect for a desired aesthetic. No new or unpredictable results would be obtained from modifying the decorative panel of Lombaert et al. to substitute the decorative layer to comprise a layer of HPL glued to the substrate with an overlying wear layer such as taught by Baert et al. Such a combination, to one of ordinary skill in the art, would have a reasonable expectation of success, and would be based on ordinary skill and common sense before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
With regard to claim 106: Lombaert et al. as modified by Baert discloses that the decorative layer comprises a wear layer.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The prior art cited art are directed to flooring panels.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JESSIE T FONSECA whose telephone number is (571)272-7195. The examiner can normally be reached 7:00am - 3:30pm.
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, Brian Glessner can be reached at (571)272-6754. 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.
/JESSIE T FONSECA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3633
