Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/035,177

INSULATION MATERIAL, INSULATION PRODUCT, LAYER STUCTURE, CONSTRUCTION AND METHOD OF MANUFACTURING INSULATION MATERIAL

Non-Final OA §102§103
Filed
May 03, 2023
Examiner
LE, HOA T
Art Unit
1788
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
Fiberwood OY
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
73%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
3y 0m
To Grant
86%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 73% — above average
73%
Career Allow Rate
785 granted / 1080 resolved
+7.7% vs TC avg
Moderate +13% lift
Without
With
+13.0%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 0m
Avg Prosecution
45 currently pending
Career history
1125
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.4%
-39.6% vs TC avg
§103
37.3%
-2.7% vs TC avg
§102
29.6%
-10.4% vs TC avg
§112
23.2%
-16.8% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1080 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103
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 disclosure is objected to because of the reference to claim numbers; e.g. page 2, lines 10-13. Claims are often amended or canceled during the course of prosecution; therefore, a reference to a claim would potentially render a description meaningless or confusing. In the case at hand, the description is meaningless because it makes references to claims 1, 12 and 13, all of which have been canceld. Appropriate correction is required. 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. Claims 19-21 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by JP-2012/241908 (“JP’908”). 1 Claim 19: JP’908 teaches an insulation material comprising a wood-derived material, i.e. cellulose, and a fire retardant, wherein the wood-derived material comprises a non-separated fiber fraction, i.e. wood fiber, and a separated fiber fraction, i.e. paper fiber, and no synthetic polymer is present in the insulation material (JP’908, para. 0010). Claim 20: JP’908 teaches the non-separated fiber fraction comprises a particulate form and the separated fiber (para. 0031). Claim 21: The insulation comprise 80/20 to 20/80 of separated fiber fraction/non-separated fiber fraction (JP’908, para. 0029) which translates to 20-80 of separated fiber fraction and 20-80 of non-separated fiber which is well within the claimed range of is within the claimed range of 10-85 weight-% of the separated fiber fraction and 10-85 weight-% of the non-separated fiber fraction. JP’908 teaches the fire retardant, i.e. additive (see para. 0035) ranging from 3 to 12 wt% (para. 0030) which overlaps the claimed range of 5-10 wt% and thus anticipates the overlapping range of 5-10 wt%. Claim 23: JP’908 exemplifies a mixture for making the insulation material comprising mixing 50/50 of separated fiber, i.e. paper fiber, having a density over 52 kg/m3 and of non-separated fiber (wood fiber) having a density of 40-42 kg/m2 (para 0055) and thus the insulation material is expected to have a density between 40- 100 kg/m3. . 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 22 and 24-35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP’908 and KESOLA (WO-2012/168563) Claim 22: JP’908 teaches the insulation material of the claimed invention as discussed above; however, JP’908 does not teach a foaming material. In the same field of endeavor, i.e. insulation material, Kesola teaches forming an insulation material comprising a foaming agent (Kesola, page 3, lines 26-32), wherein the foaming agent is used in an amount of less than 1 weight% (Kesola, page 13, line 11). Claims 24-25: Kesola reports a thermal conductivity for the insulation material being 0.03 to 0.1 W/mK (Kesola, page 15, lines 16-20), which is within the claimed range of 0.025 to 0.045 W/mK. With regards to the fire class of the insulation material, it is expected that the material satisfies a fire class E because the thermal conductivity is within the class E. Claims 26-27: Shaving and screening wood material are known process of making wood materials comprising particulate and fibrous wood derived material. Claim 28: Kesola teaches the dry matter content of the insulation material is at least larger than 90% (Page 11, lines 10-11) which is well within the claimed range of more than 85 %. Claim 29: JP’908 observes the fire retardant being on the surface of the insulation material (JP’908, para. 0048). Claims 30-31: The particle size of the non-separated fiber fraction and the fiber length of the wood fibers in the separated fiber fraction within the claimed range would have been obvious through routine experimentation absence of showing unexpected results. Claim 32: JP’908 teaches the insulation material comprise 80/20 to 20/80 of separated fiber fraction/non-separated fiber fraction (JP’908, para. 0029) which translates to 20-80 of separated fiber fraction and 20-80 of non-separated fiber which is well within the claimed range of is within the claimed range of 10-85 weight-% of the separated fiber fraction and 10-85 weight-% of the non-separated fiber fraction. JP’908 teaches the fire retardant, i.e. additive (see para. 0035) ranging from 3 to 12 wt% (para. 0030) which overlaps the claimed range of 5-10 wt% and thus anticipates the overlapping range of 5-10 wt%. Claim 33: Kesola teaches cutting to size the insulation material for use (Kesola,pargraph bridging pages 3 and 4. Claim 34: Kesola teaches a method for producing the insulation material mentioned above comprising: producing the insulation material from a wood-derived material, wherein the insulation material is produced by a foam forming (Kesola, page 10, lines 5-15). It would have been obvious to adopt the method of Kesola in order to arrive at insulation material with lighter weight due to the foaming method. Claim 35: Kesola teaches a layered structure comprising surface layers on opposite sides of the layer structure, between which surface layers there are one or more insulation layers comprising the insulation material (Kesola, page 5, lines 20-25). Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HOA (Holly) LE whose telephone number is (571)272-1511. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday, 10:00 am to 7:00 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, Alicia Chevalier can be reached at 571-272-1490. 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. HOA (Holly) LE Primary Examiner Art Unit 1788 /HOA (Holly) LE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1788 1 References that are not furnish with this O.A. have been provided by Applicants.
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

May 03, 2023
Application Filed
Sep 30, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103
Jan 02, 2026
Response after Non-Final Action

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12599965
NANOMETRIC COPPER FORMULATIONS
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12589929
RECYCLABLE BLANKS AND CONTAINERS MADE THEREFROM HAVING CONTROLLED FLUID PERMEABILITY
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12576611
Nonwoven Fabrics Suitable for Medical Applications
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12569885
POWER PLANT BOILER SAND COMPRISING DISCARDED FOUNDRY SAND, USE OF POWER PLANT BOILER SAND, METHOD FOR PRODUCING POWER PLANT BOILER SAND AND APPARATUS FOR PRODUCING POWER PLANT BOILER SAND
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12569814
SUPER-WET SURFACE AND PREPARATION METHOD THEREFOR AND APPLICATION THEREOF
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
73%
Grant Probability
86%
With Interview (+13.0%)
3y 0m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 1080 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month