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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 16-20, in the reply filed on November 17, 2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 1-15 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 November 17, 2025.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 11/17/2025 has been considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 17 and 18 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 17, the limitation in lines 1-3 reciting “wherein the Delta E between an average colour of at least one marker and an average colour of at least one region adjacent to said at least one marker is smaller than 6” is redundant in view of the limitation in lines 3-6 of claim 16.
Regarding claim 18, the limitation reciting “wherein the surface area defined by of the plurality of dots and/or pixels” appears to contain a typographical error that should instead read --wherein the surface area defined by the plurality of dots and/or pixels--.
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.
Claim 17 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 17, the limitation in lines 4-6 reciting “wherein the average colour of at least one region adjacent to said at least one marker is at least equal in size as the surface area defined by said at least one marker” is indefinite because it is not clear how an average color can be said to be “equal in size” to a surface area.
Claim 17 appears to set forth four distinct requirements for the decorative panel:
that the ΔE between an average color of the marker and an average color of the region adjacent to the marker is smaller than 6;
that the average color of the marker is defined over a surface area defined by the marker;
that the average color of the region adjacent to the marker is at least equal in size as the surface area defined by the marker; and
that the region adjacent to the marker substantially surrounds the marker.
As noted in the objection to claim 17 above, the first limitation (a) is identical to the limitation set forth in lines 3-6 of claim 1. The limitation (c) is indefinite, and the instant specification does not provide further clarity as to what this limitation is intended to require. In particular, paragraphs [0031] and [0048] recite the same language as set forth in limitation (c) above but do not explain what is meant by an average color of the region adjacent to the marker being at least equal in size as the surface area defined by the marker. Absent further clarification, for the purpose of applying prior art, this limitation is interpreted as requiring that the surface area of at least one region adjacent to the at least one marker is at least equal in size as the surface area defined by the at least one marker.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 16 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Weiss (WO 2015/086766, machine translation via EPO provided).
Regarding claim 16, Weiss teaches an item (10; decorative panel) comprising a security feature (5; decorative pattern) provided on a surface (15; upper surface) thereof ([0022], Figs. 1-4, 15). The security feature consists of a motif (13; marker), the color of which, under certain conditions, differs slightly from the color of the surrounding surface (14; region adjacent to the marker) ([0026], Fig. 4). The surrounding area (14) has a first color (1), while the motif (13) has a second color (2), where the difference between the first color and the second color is below the perception threshold of the human eye, having a value ΔE2000 of less than 2.0 ([0028]-[0029]). Weiss teaches that the object (10) can be a housing wall, vessel, container, or a molded component of a product, where the object can comprise printed designs (21, 22) or varnish layers (41, 42) laid on a substrate material (25) ([0059], [0063], Fig. 15).
Regarding claim 17, Weiss teaches all of the limitations of claim 16 above and further teaches that the second color (2) of the motif (13; marker) is defined over a second surface area (12) defined by the motif ([0028], Fig. 4). As shown in Figs. 1-4, the surface area of the surrounding surface (14; region adjacent to the marker) is greater in size than the surface area defined by the motif (13; marker).
Claims 16-18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Heeger (WO 2019/052953, machine translation via EPO provided).
Regarding claim 16, Heeger teaches a decorative element (decorative panel) comprising a carrier part (12) and a printed decorative film (10) bonded together, wherein the decorative film forms the surface (upper surface) of the decorative element and comprises a decoration (pattern) having a symbol (18; marker) embedded therein ([0008], [0023], [0027], Figs. 1-4). Heeger teaches that the embedded symbol is not visible to the human eye but can be captured by means of a scanner (e.g., camera, phone, tablet) ([0010], [0031]). The symbol consists of individual pixels (20), which are areas in which a slight color shift has been made, where adjacent regions are areas in which no color shift has been made ([0037], Figs. 1-2).
Given that the symbol is not visible by a human eye due to slight color differences between the symbol and the region adjacent to the symbol, but is visible by means of an electronic device such as a phone or camera, the color difference ΔE between an average color of the symbol and an average color of a region adjacent to the symbol would inherently be within the claimed range of less than 6. In particular, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the threshold for human perception of color differences is below 6, such that the symbol that is not visible by a human eye due to a slight color shift must have a ΔE less than 6 as claimed.
Regarding claim 17, Heeger teaches all of the limitations of claim 16 above. As shown in Figs. 1-2, the symbol (18; marker) is composed of a plurality of pixels (20), shown in black, where the regions adjacent to the marker are represented by the wood grain pattern shown in Fig. 1 which substantially surrounds the symbol. The surface area of the region adjacent to and surrounding the symbol is at least equal in size as the surface area defined by the symbol.
As noted above with respect to claim 16, the color difference ΔE between an average color of the symbol and an average color of a region adjacent to the symbol would inherently be within the claimed range of less than 6 given that Heeger teaches that the symbol is not visible by a human eye due to slight color differences between the symbol and the region adjacent to the symbol. Given that the pixels (20) of the symbol (18) are said to be areas where a slight color shift has been made relative to the surrounding areas ([0037]), the average color of the symbol is defined over the surface area defined by the symbol (i.e., over the area where the pixels are present).
Regarding claim 18, Heeger teaches all of the limitations of claim 16 above. As noted above, Heeger teaches that the symbol (18; marker) is made up of individual pixels (20) ([0029], Figs. 1-2). Heeger further teaches that the symbol must be large enough to be captured accurately by a smartphone when the entire decorative film is photographed, and thus the size of the symbol may be at least 20 x 20 mm ([0017], [0041]). Heeger therefore teaches that the surface area defined by the symbol is at least 400 mm2.
Regarding claim 20, Heeger teaches all of the limitations of claim 16 above and further teaches that the decoration (pattern) may be a wood imitation (wood pattern) ([0015], [0027], Fig. 1). As shown in Fig. 1, the symbol (18; marker) is located adjacent to and/or at least partially within at least one growth ring and/or at least one knot in the wood imitation.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weiss (WO 2015/086766, machine translation via EPO provided) as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Heeger (WO 2019/052953, machine translation via EPO provided).
Regarding claim 18, Weiss teaches all of the limitations of claim 16 above and further teaches that the printing ink layer (22) formed in the second surface area (12) defined by the motif (13) may be formed as a pattern of individual, distinguishable or overlapping, print dots ([0059], Fig. 15). Weiss differs from the claimed invention in that the reference does not expressly teach a size (i.e., surface area) of the plurality of dots forming the motif.
Heeger teaches a printed decorative film (10) comprising a decoration (pattern) having a symbol (18; marker) embedded therein ([0023], [0027], Figs. 1, 2, 4). Similar to Weiss, Heeger teaches that the embedded symbol is not visible to the human eye but can be captured by means of a scanner (e.g., camera, phone, tablet) ([0010], [0031]). The symbol consists of individual pixels (20), which are areas in which a slight color shift has been made, where adjacent regions are areas in which no color shift has been made ([0037], Figs. 1-2). Heeger teaches that the symbol must be large enough to be captured accurately by a smartphone when the entire decorative film is photographed, and thus the size of the symbol may be at least 20 x 20 mm ([0017], [0041]). Heeger therefore teaches that the surface area defined by the symbol is at least 400 mm2.
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 motif of Weiss by setting a size of the surface area of the dots defining the motif to at least 400 mm2, as taught by Heeger, in order to ensure that the symbol can be accurately captured by a phone or other scanning device.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heeger (WO 2019/052953, machine translation via EPO provided) as applied to claim 16 above, and Gföller (WO 2024/125809, machine translation via EPO provided).
Regarding claim 19, Heeger teaches all of the limitations of claim 16 above. Although Heeger teaches that decorative element (decorative panel) may be used for furniture, floors, walls, or ceilings, and that the symbol (18; marker) may be applied multiple times along the decoration, such that numerous symbols are scattered throughout the decoration ([0023], [0040]), the reference does not expressly teach that the decorative panel comprises a chamfer, wherein the symbol is positioned upon the chamfer.
Gföller teaches a panel (1), such as a well, ceiling, furniture, or floor panel, which comprises a carrier plate (10) having a chamfer (12) on at least one edge of the plate, and a decorative printed layer (20) applied to the plate and to the chamfer ([0119], Fig. 1). The decorative printed layer (20) comprises a decorative pattern (21) and is applied to both the plate (10) and the chamfer (12) such that it is essentially continuous at the transition (13) between the plate and the chamfer so that there is no variation in the decorative printed layer when viewed from above, and so that there is no haptic difference between the surface of the plate and the chamfer ([0019], [0121]-[0122], Fig. 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 element of Heeger by forming a chamfer in the carrier part, as suggested by Gföller, given that such chamfers are known to be desirable decorative features of floor, wall, ceiling, and furniture panels. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to apply the decorative film of Heeger having numerous symbols scattered throughout in a continuous manner across the entire surface of the carrier part and the chamfer, such that at least one symbol is positioned on the chamfer, as suggested by Gföller, so that there is no visual or haptic difference between the top surface of the carrier and the surface of the chamfer.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Meeus et al. (US 2021/0213767) teaches an inkjet printing method for manufacturing decorative laminate panels, including printing one or more decorative patterns having an identification code concealed therein on a substrate web (Abstract, [0052]). The identification code may be machine readable, but not human readable, due to the use of steganography [0052].
Clement et al. (WO 2025/012847) teaches a ceramic slab printed with a decorative pattern comprising a concealed code which is invisible to the human eye but is machine readable (p. 1, Ln 6-11). The concealed code may be a steganographic code, which is composed of a series of clusters of pixels and is continuously repeated over the full decorative pattern of the slab (p. 12, Ln 20-24; Fig. 2A-2B).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to REBECCA L GRUSBY whose telephone number is (571) 272-1564. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:30 AM-5:30 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 (571) 272-1291. 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.
/Rebecca L Grusby/Examiner, Art Unit 1785