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 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, 2 and 4-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamashita et al. (US PG Pub 2019/0104234) in view of Gilman (US PG Pub 2017/0115761).
For claim 1: Yamashita et al. teaches a method for formulating an ink for a gravure printing press 300 (see paragraph 89, target printing press being a gravure printing press), the method comprising: digitally printing of a patch onto a substrate (see paragraph 88, printing colors of a target printing press for color matching), the patch including at least one color reference area CH1 (see Fig. 2), the color reference area including at least one digital ink (see paragraph 88, printed by ink jet printing press 200); measuring a color of the at least one color reference area of the patch (see paragraph 89, measuring the values with the colorimetric device); adjusting a tone of an ink for gravure printing to match the color of the at least one color reference area of the patch (see paragraphs 93 and 94, modifying and adjusting and controlling the gravure printing). Yamashita et al. does not specify the printing of a décor and a patch wherein the patch is located on a part of the substrate that is substantially free of the décor. However, Gilman teaches a printing apparatus which prints a décor 42 and a patch 44wherein the patch 44 is printed on a part of the substrate free of the décor 42 (See Fig. 1, element 44 printed separate from but with element 42). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to provide a printing surface with a décor and a patch as taught by Gilman for the purpose of demonstrating the patch with the printing images.
For claim 2: The combination of Yamashita et al. and Gilman teaches the method of claim 1 and Yamashita et al. teaches the step of measuring comprising measuring of a color using visual inspection (see paragraph 81, measuring with device 120).
For claim 4: The combination of Yamashita et al. and Gilman teaches the method of claim 1 and Gilman teaches that the ink for gravure printing is a UV curable ink (see paragraph 58), a water-based ink, or a solvent-based ink.
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Yamashita et al. and Gilman teaches all of the limitations of claim 5 except that the digital printing of the decor and the patch is a multi-pass digital printing. However, it is well known in the art of digital or ink jet printing to utilize multi-pass printing, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention would utilize digital multi-pass printing in a case where the print head is smaller to save on print head costs.
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Yamashita et al. and Gilman teaches all of the limitations of claim 6 except that the digital printing of the decor and the patch is a single-pass digital printing. However, it is well known in the art of digital or ink jet printing to utilize single-pass printing, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention would utilize digital single-pass printing in a case where the print head to achieve faster print rates.
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Yamashita et al. and Gilman teaches all of the limitations of claim 7 except printing at least two printed decors situated apart from each other; wherein the patch is printed between the at least two printed decors. However, this differential between the prior art can be overcome through a duplication of the known parts; it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to duplicate printing of the décor part on multiple sides of the patch to demonstrate additional décor images.
For claim 8: The combination of Yamashita et al. and Gilman teaches all of the limitations of claim 7 and Gilman further comprising printing multiple patches (see Fig. 1, multiple patches 44; multiple patches also appear in Yamashita et al., Fig. 2).
For claim 9: The combination of Yamashita et al. and Gilman teaches the method of claim 1, and Yamashita et al. teaches that the digital ink is selected from the group consisting of Cyan, Yellow, Magenta, Black, Red, light cyan, light magenta, and Brown (see paragraph 86, ink colors can be Cyan, Yellow, Magenta, Black).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamashita et al. (US PG Pub 2019/0104234) and Gilman (US PG Pub 2017/0115761) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Bruchmann et al. (US PG Pub 2014/0193619).
For claim 3: The combination of Yamashita et al. and Gilman teaches all of the limitations of claim 3 except that the mixing the tone of the ink includes additional constituents chosen from a group including solvents. However, Bruchmann et al. teaches providing gravure printing ink with solvent mix (see paragraph 168). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to provide the ink with a mix including solvent as taught by Bruchmann et al. for the purpose of carrying the ink pigments through the printing device onto the substrate.
Claims 10-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamashita et al. (US PG Pub 2019/0104234) and Gilman (US PG Pub 2017/0115761) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lenaerts et a. (US PG Pub 2020/0031151).
For claim 10: The combination of Yamashita et al. and Gilman teaches the method of claim 1 for producing an ink for a gravure printing but does not teach the method steps of manufacturing a décor paper comprising providing a second substrate and printing the second substrate with the ink. However, Lenaerts et al. teaches a method for manufacturing a decor paper 12 for laminate panels 21, the method comprising: providing an ink formulated in a method according to claim 1; providing a second substrate 12; printing the second substrate with an analog printing technique (see paragraph 18). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to utilize the ink taught by the combination of Yamashita et al. and Gilman in the method of Lenaerts et al. for the purpose of ink that is more accurately of the desired color.
For claim 11: The combination of Yamashita et al., Gilman and Lenaerts et al. teaches the method of claim 10, and Lenaerts et al. teaches that the second substrate comprises a paper sheet or a thermoplastic foil (see paragraphs 7 and 9).
For claim 12. The combination of Yamashita et al. and Gilman teaches the method of claim 1 for producing an ink for a gravure printing, but does not specify printing a printed substrate that is a printed substrate using the ink therefrom and laminating the printed substrate onto a support to form a laminated panel. However, Lenaerts teaches providing a printed substrate 12 that is gravure printed with an ink (see paragraph 18) and laminating the printed substrate 12 onto a support 21 to form a laminated panel (see Fig. 2). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to utilize the ink taught by the combination of Yamashita et al. and Gilman in the method of Lenaerts et al. for the purpose of ink that is more accurately of the desired color.
For claim 13: The combination of Yamashita et al., Gilman and Lenaerts et al. teaches the method of claim 12 and Lenaerts et al. teaches impregnating the printed substrate before the step of laminating (see Fig. 2, printing of elements 12 occurs well before lamination with board 21).
For claim 14: The combination of Yamashita et al., Gilman and Lenaerts et al. teaches the method of claim 12 and Lenaerts et al. teaches that the step of laminating is a direct pressure lamination (DPL) or a high-pressure lamination (HPL) or a thermal lamination (see paragraph 41, thermal lamination).
For claim 15: The combination of Yamashita et al., Gilman and Lenaerts et al. teaches the method of claim 12 and Lenaerts et al. teaches that the support is fabricated from a wood-based material or of a thermoplastic material (see paragraph 86, polyvinyl chloride, which is a thermoplastic material).
For claim 16: The combination of Yamashita et al., Gilman and Lenaerts et al. teaches the method of claim 12, and Lenaerts et al. teaches providing a wear layer 12 and/or lacquer layer above the printed substrate 12, 15 (see Fig. 2, paragraph 19, wear layer 12 provided above printed layer 15 formed from a separate element 12).
For claim 17: The combination of Yamashita et al., Gilman and Lenaerts et al. teaches the method of claim 16, and Lenaerts et al. teaches the step of providing the wear layer is performed at the moment of laminating the printed substrate on the support (see Fig. 2, simultaneously adhering all three elements).
For claim 18: The combination of Yamashita et al., Gilman and Lenaerts et al. teaches the method of claim 16, and Lenaerts et al. teaches providing a tongue 31 and a groove 32 for coupling the panel with an adjacent panel (see Fig. 3).
For claim 19: The combination of Yamashita et al., Gilman and Lenaerts et al. teaches the method of claim 10 which consequently laminating the printed substrate 12, 15, 12 onto a support 21 (see Fig. 2 of Lenaerts et al. at element 20) to obtain a laminated panel 22 (see Fig. 3).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID H BANH whose telephone number is (571)270-3851. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 12-8PM.
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, Stephen Meier can be reached at (571)272-2149. 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.
/DAVID H BANH/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2853
