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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 6/3/2026 has been entered.
Withdrawn Rejections
The 35 U.S.C. 112(a) rejection of claims 1, 3-8 and 12-17 of record in the Final Office Action mailed on 2/3/2026 has been withdrawn due to Applicant's amendment filed on 6/3/2026.
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 1, 3-8 and 12-17 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.
The limitation “wherein the base substrate layer, the first fire-resistant layer, the fines layer and the second fire-resistant layer are a finished product formed into an integral bonded multilayer arrangement” in claim 1 is deemed indefinite. The paper overlay layer now recited in claim 1 is not included in the finished product formed into an integral bonded multilayer arrangement, so it is unclear if it should be included or is separate.
Claim 5 recites the panel or board “further comprises an outermost layer comprising a weather-resistant and/or water-resistant barrier”. It is not clear if this is referring to the paper overlay layer, now recited in independent claim 1, or a separate outermost layer, since claim 6, which depends from claim 5, recites “the outermost layer comprises a resin-impregnated paper overlay”. It is not clear if the paper overlay layer in claim 1 is the same as the resin-impregnated paper overlay. Appropriate correction is requested.
Claim 8 is also rejected as being dependent on claim 5 and including the indefinite aspects thereof.
Claim 7 recites “wherein the first fire-resistant laminate layer is an outermost layer, further wherein the first fire-resistant laminate layer is weather resistant and/or water resistant”. It is not clear how the first fire-resistant laminate layer can be an outermost layer, since claim 1, which claim 7 depends from, now recites “a paper overlay layer disposed on the upper surface of the first fire-resistant laminate layer” which makes the paper overlay layer the outermost layer.
Appropriate correction is requested.
Claims 3, 4 and 12-17 are also rejected as being dependent on claim 1 and including the indefinite aspects thereof.
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, 3-8 and 12-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EP2319671A1 [hereinafter EP ‘671] in view of Xiao et al. (CN105984185) [hereinafter Xiao] and further in view of Johnson et al. (US 2022/0098859) [hereinafter Johnson].
Regarding claims 1 and 3-8, EP ‘671 discloses a fire-resistant integrated panel or board (Fig. 3), comprising a base substrate layer, comprising one or more layers (layers 2, 3 and 4) of manufactured-wood strands (OSB; paragraphs [0015], [0018] and [0021]), the base substrate layer with an upper surface and a lower surface, and a first fire-resistant laminate layer with an upper surface and a lower surface (layer 5), the first fire-resistant laminate layer disposed on the upper surface of the base substrate layer (Fig. 3), comprising one or more of a fire-resistant woven fabric and a fire-resistant nonwoven fabric (paragraphs [0008-0010]), wherein the first fire-resistant laminate layer is a single layer (layer 5) and is inherently both flame-spread resistant and burn-through resistant, since it includes a nonwoven of glass fibers and provides significantly increased fire resistance (paragraph [0009]), a second fire-resistant laminate layer (6) affixed to the lower surface of the base substrate layer, comprising a woven or nonwoven fabric (paragraphs [0008-0010]), wherein the second fire-resistant laminate layer is inherently both flame-spread resistant and burn-through resistant, since it includes a nonwoven of glass fibers and provides significantly increased fire resistance (paragraph [0009]), wherein the base substrate layer, the first fire-resistant layer, and the second fire-resistant layer are a finished product formed into an integral bonded multilayer arrangement (paragraphs [0010] and [0020]).
It is to be pointed out that the limitation “both flame-spread resistant and burn-through resistant” is a functional limitation and is deemed to be an inherent characteristic of the prior art, since the first and second fire-resistant laminate layers of EP ‘671 both include nonwovens of glass fibers and provide fire resistance which is substantially identical to that of the structure of the claimed first and second fire-resistant laminate layers. MPEP 2114.
EP ‘671 fails to teach a fines layer adjacent to the upper surface or the lower surface of the first fire-resistant laminate layer, and also fails to teach a paper overlay disposed on the upper surface of the first fire-resistant laminate layer and an outermost layer comprising a resin-impregnated paper overlay which is affixed or adhered to a face of the first fire-resistant laminate layer.
Xiao teaches that it is well known in the OSB art to have a fines layer located between the OSB substrate layer and a finished coating layer in order to improve the smoothness of the surface of the OSB (see abstract).
Johnson teaches a fire-rated structural OSB panel that includes an outermost weather-resistant and/or water-resistant barrier including a resin-impregnated paper overlay for the purpose of providing an effective water resistive barrier that resists bulk water (paragraphs [0016] and [0032]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a fines layer between the OSB substrate layer and the first fire-resistant laminate layer in EP ‘671 as suggested by Xiao in order to improve the smoothness of the OSB board, if so desired. Additionally, 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 panel in EP ‘671 to include an outermost resin-impregnated paper overlay layer as suggested by Johnson in order to provide the panel with a water resistive barrier that can resist bulk water, if so desired.
Regarding claim 12, EP ‘671 teaches the base substrate layer comprising at least three layers of oriented manufactured-wood strands, including one or more core layers (Fig. 3, layers 2, 3 and 4).
Regarding claim 13, EP ‘671 teaches one or more layers of the at least three layers being treated with fire-resistant chemicals (paragraph [0020]).
Regarding claim 14, the first fire-resistant laminate layer of EP ‘671 would inherently resist leach of the fire-resistant chemicals from the base substrate layer, since the fire-resistant laminate layer comprises one or more of a fire-resistant woven fabric and a fire-resistant nonwoven fabric (paragraphs [0008-0010] and [0020]).
Regarding claim 15, the first fire-resistant laminate layer (layer 5) disclosed in EP ‘671 is inherently a structural reinforcement layer configured to provide structural support to the board, since the fire-resistant laminate layer comprises one or more of a fire-resistant woven fabric and a fire-resistant nonwoven fabric (paragraphs [0008-0010] and [0020]).
Regarding claim 16, the first fire-resistant laminate layer disclosed in EP ‘671 inherently is a structural reinforcement layer configured to increase the structural integrity of the panel or board when exposed to fire, since the fire-resistant laminate layer comprises one or more of a fire-resistant woven fabric and a fire-resistant nonwoven fabric (paragraphs [0008-0010] and [0020]).
Regarding claim 17, the first fire-resistant laminate layer disclosed in EP ‘671 inherently is a structural reinforcement layer configured to prevent or reduce cracking and/or splitting of the panel or board when exposed to fire, since the fire-resistant laminate layer comprises one or more of a fire-resistant woven fabric and a fire-resistant nonwoven fabric (paragraphs [0008-0010] and [0020]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, filed 6/3/2026, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of claims 1, 3, 4 and 12-17 as being unpatentable over Kronotec (EP2319671A1) in view of Xiao et al. (CN105984185) have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that “Kronotec does not disclose a paper overlay layer, as now recited in claim 1 and as demonstrated in Figure 8 of the present application”.
As shown in the 103 rejection above, the Examiner acknowledges that Kronotec does not discloses a paper overlay layer as now recited in claim 1. However, Johnson (US 2022/0098859) was cited to teach that it is well known in the fire resistant OSB panel art to include a resin-impregnated paper overlay layer on the outermost surface of the panel for the purpose of providing an effective water resistive barrier that resists bulk water (paragraphs [0016] and [0032]), and 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 panel in Kronotec to include an outermost resin-impregnated paper overlay layer as suggested by Johnson in order to provide the panel with a water resistive barrier that can resist bulk water, if so desired.
Applicant further argues that Kronotec does not disclose a first or second fire-resistant layer that is both flame-spread resistant and burn-through resistant. Kronotec refers to flame retardants being added. Flame retardants slow the propagation of flame across the surface of a material, i.e., "flame spread", by delaying ignition, and do not address burn-through. Kronotec does not mention burn-through and Xiao does not cure these defects.
This argument is not deemed persuasive. It is to be pointed out that the limitation “both flame-spread resistant and burn-through resistant” is a functional limitation and is deemed to be an inherent characteristic of the prior art. MPEP 2114. Kronotec (EP ‘671) teaches the first fire-resistant laminate layer and the second fire-resistant laminate layer comprising nonwoven glass fibers which is substantially identical to that of the claimed first and second fire-resistant laminate layers. Thus, the first and second fire-resistant laminate layers in Kronotec inherently are both burn-through resistant and flame spread resistant, since they both include nonwoven of glass fibers.
Accordingly, claims 1, 3-8 and 12-17 are unpatentable over Kronotec in view of both Xiao and Johnson.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CATHERINE A SIMONE whose telephone number is (571)272-1501. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-4pm.
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, Frank Vineis can be reached at 571-270-1547. 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.
CATHERINE A. SIMONE
Examiner
Art Unit 1781
/Catherine A. Simone/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1781
Prosecution Insights