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.
Claims 1, 3-5, 7, 10-11, 13-15, 19-20, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuvik (US 2020/0156347) in view of Stadler (US 2020/0122438).
Kuvik teaches a method of forming a wood particle board (10), the method comprising: forming a core layer (2) comprising wood particles with a large particle size and an adhesive agent, applying an interfoil (3) on a top surface of the core layer, applying a surface layer (4) comprising smaller wood particles on an upper surface of the interfoil, and consolidating and bonding the core layer, interfoil, and surface layer together with heat and/or pressure (See Figures; [0005]-[0022]; [0029]-[0049]). The interfoil (3) and surface layer (4) read on the instantly claimed fines interface layer and fines layer, respectively.
Regarding the newly added limitation “wherein the fines interface layer comprises a glue film, pulp mat, or combinations thereof,” Kuvik teaches that an adhesive may be sprayed onto the core layer and interfoil by spray nozzles (20) to improve bonding (See Fig. 4; [0048]-[0049]). A layer of adhesive forms when the adhesive is sprayed onto the core layer and interfoil. The layer of adhesive reads on the instantly claimed glue film.
While Kuvik teaches that the core layer (2) may be oriented strand board (OSB) (See [0005]), the reference does not expressly disclose forming OSB by sequentially forming, on a production line, a bottom strand layer with adhesive and having a bottom strand orientation, a core strand layer with adhesive and a core strand orientation different from the bottom strand orientation, and a top strand layer with adhesive and having a top strand orientation.
Stadler teaches a method of forming OSB, the method comprising the following steps in order: forming a lower surface layer mat (12’) of oriented strands treated with a binder, forming a core layer mat (20’) of oriented strands treated with a binder on the lower surface layer mat, forming an upper surface layer mat (11’) of oriented strands treated with a binder on the core layer mat, and consolidating the mats by heat and pressure to produce OSB (See Figures; [0139]-[0147]). The lower surface layer mat, core layer mat, and upper surface layer mat read on the instantly claimed bottom layer, core layer, and top layer, respectively, with the binder acting as an adhesive as claimed. Regarding the difference in strand orientation between the bottom layer and the core layer, Stadler teaches such an arrangement to add strength to the OSB (See [0046]-[0047]; [0053]-[0055]; [0106]). Stadler teaches that the OSB is formed on an apparatus by applying each sequential layer and advancing the layers on a conveyor belt (See Fig. 3; [0145]-[0147]). The apparatus therefore forms a production line on which all of the layers are formed.
Since Kuvik generally discloses OSB but does not expressly disclose the steps by which the OSB is formed prior to applying the interfoil and surface layer, one of ordinary skill in the art would look to other prior art teachings to determine conventional OSB production methods. The teachings of Stadler show that it was well-known and conventional in the prior art at the time of filing to form OSB by sequentially providing binder-treated oriented strand layers with different orientations on a production line as claimed. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to form the OSB generally disclosed by Kuvik using the method of Stadler, since such a method was recognized in the prior art as being suitable for the production of OSB.
Regarding the limitation that the fines interface layer and fines layer are formed on a production line, the method of Kuvik is also performed by sequentially advancing and stacking layers on a conveyor belt, such an arrangement forming a production line as claimed. In the proposed combination, all layers would be formed and consolidated on the same production line for an efficient and streamlined process.
Regarding the limitation wherein the fines interface layer prevents the passage of fines from the fines layer into the top strand layer, Kuvik teaches that the interfoil is configured to prevent wood particles from passing from the surface layer into the core layer (See [0008]; [0020]). Based on this teaching, it is reasonable to conclude that the interfoil contains all—or at least a vast majority—of the particles from the surface layer such that claim 3 is satisfied. If this limitation was not met, the interfoil would not perform as described in the Kuvik reference.
Regarding claims 4-5, Kuvik teaches a textile interfoil (See [0016]; [0034]). One of ordinary skill in the art would understand the term textile to mean a fabric, including both non-woven and woven fabrics of natural or synthetic materials as claimed.
Regrading claim 7, Kuvik teaches an interfoil comprising a plastic sheet (See [0034]).
Regarding claim 10, Kuvik teaches that the interfoil may melt during consolidation and bonding (See [0014]; [0033]).
Regarding claim 11, Kuvik does not expressly disclose that the interfoil comprises a stiffener. However Kuvik teaches that the interfoil may include textiles, meshes, and perforated plastic layers with adhesive that cures during pressing, as detailed above. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing that such materials would contribute to some degree to the overall stiffness of the wood particle board. Therefore such materials may be considered “stiffeners” as claimed. Since the instant application does not provide a detailed description of a “stiffener”, this term has been given its broadest reasonable interpretation to include any material which contributes to the stiffness of a multi-ply panel.
Claims 4-5, 7, and 10-11 have been amended such that they include the pulp or glue materials of claim 1 and add additional materials to the interlayer. It is prima facie obvious to combine two compositions each of which is taught by the prior art to be useful for the same purpose, in order to form a third composition to be used for the very same purpose, and the idea of combining them flows logically from their having been individually taught in the prior art (See MPEP 2144.06). In this case, the combining of different interfoil layers which were taught by Kuvik in order to form an interfoil layer used for the same purpose is prima facie obvious.
Regarding claim 13, Kuvik teaches a step of applying veneers or other materials on top of the surface layer (1) to provide a decorative surface (See [0042]). Such other materials read on the instantly claimed overlay.
Regarding claim 14, Kuvik teaches applying heat and pressure with a hot press (See [0009]; [0029]).
Regarding claim 15, Kuvik teaches applying pressure with a cold press (See [0009]; [0020]).
Regarding claim 19, Kuvik discloses oriented strand board (OSB) (See [0005]).
Regarding claim 20, the method of Kuvik creates a panel product (See Figures; [0005]; [0030]).
Regarding claim 22, Kuvik does not expressly that the interfoil provides sound dampening. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing that any interfoil layer, including fabrics, films, etc., would provide at least some degree of sound dampening. One of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect that any interfoil material within the laminate would absorb and/or redirect at least some portion of sounds waves passing therethrough. Therefore the interfoil would provide some degree of sound dampening as claimed. This term has been given its broadest reasonable interpretation to include any material which provides any degree of sound dampening within a laminate.
Claims 12, 21, and 23-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuvik (US 2020/0156347) in view of Stadler (US 2020/0122438) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Wentworth (US 4,364,984)
Kuvik and Stadler combine to teach a method of forming a wood particle board, as detailed above.
Regarding claim 12, Kuvik and Stadler do not expressly disclose glass in the interfoil as claimed.
Wentworth teaches multilayer OSB (See Figures; Abstract) which may include various additives including glass within its layers (See col. 7, lines 22-26).
Kuvik and Stadler do not expressly disclose providing an interlayer which provides moisture resistance, fire resistance, or fungal resistance, as required in claims 21, 23, and 24, respectively.
Wentworth also teaches that the multilayer OSB may include various additives within various layers of the OSB to improve resistance to moisture, fire, and/or fungus (See col. 7, lines 16-22).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to use one or more of the various additives disclosed by Wentworth in the interfoil taught by Kuvik. The rationale to do so would have been the motivation provided by the teaching of Wentworth that to do so would predictably impart desirable properties on the final product (See col. 7, lines 13-28).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuvik (US 2020/0156347) in view of Stadler (US 2020/0122438) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Barker (US 2013/0209730).
Kuvik and Stadler combine to teach a method of forming a wood particle board, as detailed above.
Kuvik and Stadler do not expressly disclose heating with microwaves during consolidation and bonding.
Barker teaches that the application of microwaves during bonding was known in the prior art as being suitable for producing multiplayer panels (See Abstract; [0023]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply microwaves in the bonding and consolidation step of Kuvik and Stadler since Barker teaches that microwave application was recognized in the prior art as being suitable for use in manufacturing multilayer panels.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuvik (US 2020/0156347) in view of Stadler (US 2020/0122438) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Li (US 2017/0151690).
Kuvik and Stadler combine to teach a method of forming a wood particle board, as detailed above.
Kuvik and Stadler do not expressly disclose heating with super-heated steam during consolidation and bonding.
Li teaches a method of manufacturing fiberboard, the method comprising heating a mat with superheated steam (See [0055]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to use superheated steam heating in the method of Kuvik and Stadler. The rationale to do so would have been the motivation provided by the teaching of Li that to do so would predictably increase pressing efficiency (See [0055]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, filed 11/30/2025, have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Kuvik and Stadler fail to teach or fairly suggest a fines interface layer comprising a glue film and/or a pulp mat. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Kuvik teaches that an adhesive may be sprayed onto the core layer and interfoil by spray nozzles (20) to improve bonding (See Fig. 4; [0048]-[0049]). A layer of adhesive forms when the adhesive is sprayed onto the core layer and interfoil. The layer of adhesive reads on the instantly claimed glue film. Examiner notes that the term “film” has been given its broadest reasonable interpretation to include any thin layer of material.
Regarding claim 12, Applicant argues that the Wentworth reference teaches “fiber glass” and therefore does not teach “glass” as claimed. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Given its broadest reasonable interpretation, the term “glass” includes the glass fibers which make up fiberglass.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CARSON GROSS whose telephone number is (571)270-7657. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-5pm Eastern.
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 Orlando can be reached at (571)270-5038. 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.
/CARSON GROSS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1746