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 .
Response to Amendment
1. Applicant’s amendments and accompanying remarks filed 4/20/26 have been fully considered and entered. Claims 1 and 10 have been amended. Claims 19 and 20 have been added. Applicant’s amendments are found sufficient to overcome the anticipation and obviousness type rejections made over the cited prior art of Jaffee, US 20060054265 A1. Specifically, the cited prior art of Jaffee, US 20060054265 A1 does not teach that the FR additive conveying laminate comprises a woven fabric. As such, these rejections are hereby withdrawn. However, upon further consideration the following new ground of rejections are set forth herein below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
2. 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.
3. Claim(s) 1-3 and 8-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jaffee, US 20060054265 A1 further in view of published JP 2890233 B2.
The published patent application issued to Jaffee teach a composite laminate comprising a wood furnish layer comprising strands or fibers and further teach that boards such as oriented strand boards (OSB) are known in the art to form wood composite laminates (paragraphs 0004-0006 and 0028). Jaffee exemplifies the use of OSB panels in several of the examples (paragraphs 0011-0017 and 0026). Jaffee teach that the wood furnish layer (OSB) also comprises binder (paragraph 0008). The Examiner is of the position that an oriented strand board (OSB) treated with binder is sufficient to meet the limitation of a wood strand layer that has been treated with chemicals that are not fire or flame resisting chemicals. Jaffee teach that the wood furnish is made with wood and cellulose materials (paragraph 0022). With regard to the claimed “FR” layer, Jaffee teach that the OSB layer is joined to a non-woven layer (abstract and paragraphs 0011-0017). Said non-woven layer can be to be flame/fire resistant (paragraph 0030). Said non-woven layer can be made from glass, metal, cellulose, polyester and mixtures thereof (paragraph 0031). Jaffee further teach that the non-woven can be made from inorganic fibers that naturally enhances the flame resistant and reduces flame propagation (paragraph 0031). The Examiner is of the position that “FR” non-woven layer of Jaffee meets the claimed “FR” additive conveying layer. Jaffee further teaches that the wood furnish (OSB) layer and the “FR” non-woven layer are joined using heat and pressure (paragraph 0043). The Examiner is of the position that composite laminate of Jaffee meet the method and structural limitations of claim 1.
Jaffee teach an “FR” non-woven layer rather than the claimed woven layer. However, the Examiner is of the position that woven fabrics are known alternatives and an obvious variation to non-woven fabrics. For example, the published JP application teach a method for producing a wooden board comprising the steps of hot-pressing a material with a cloth interposed between the pressing plate and the wood chip/flake/fiber mat. (e.g., a wood chip, flakes or fibers formed by applying an adhesive, spraying or impregnating to form a mat)(see description). The published JP application teach that the cloth can have a woven structure (see description). The Examiner is of the position that absent unexpected results it would be within the skill of a worker in the art to substitute the non-woven structure of Jaffee with a woven structure as taught by published JP application. In other words, the Examiner is of the position that it would be within the skill of an ordinary worker in the art to form a woven fabric from the fibers of Jaffee into a woven structure rather than a non-woven structure. The modification involves the mere substitution of a non-woven material with a woven material known for its suitability as fibrous reinforcing fabric and would yield a predictable variation whose application is well within the skill of the art.
With regard to claim 2, Jaffee teach the claimed oriented strand board (OSB) as set forth above.
With regard to claim 3, Jaffee teach that the non-woven mat is treated with the binder/ flame retardant additives as disclosed above and cured prior to joining with the oriented strand board (OSB) layer. The final composite is formed with subsequent heat and pressure (paragraph 0030 and 0039). In other words, based on the disclosure of Jaffee it appears that the OSB layer and the non-woven mat comprising the “FR” additives are separately formed prior to the application of heat and pressure to form the final composite laminate.
With regard to claim 8, Jaffee teach that the additional “FR” non-woven mats can be used, such as forming a sandwich type structure wherein the OSB layer is sandwiched between outer “FR” non-woven layers (paragraph 0023).
With regard to claims 9-11, Jaffee teach the claimed glass and cellulose fibers as set forth above. The binder is made from a polymer (paragraph 0033).
With regard to claim 12, the Examiner is of the position that woven fabric meets the limitation of a “mesh”.
With regard to claim 13, the Examiner of the position that the composite laminate of Jaffee would provide the claimed resistance to combustion and resistance to flame spread across the surface of the product during a fire event. Support is found in the use of similar structural layers such the claimed OSB layer and “FR” non-woven layer made using glass or metal fibers and the addition of “FR” additives. Applicants are invited to prove otherwise.
With regard to claim 14, the Examiner of the position that the composite laminate of Jaffee would provide the claimed resistance to loss of structural integrity in the wood strand substrate portion of the product during a fire event. Support is found in the use of similar structural layers such the claimed OSB layer and “FR” non-woven layer made using glass or metal fibers and the addition of “FR” additives. Applicants are invited to prove otherwise.
With regard to claim 15, the Examiner is of the position that the composite laminate of Jaffee meets the limitation of integrated wood panel composite with a conveying “FR” laminate formed using the claimed method (heat and pressure).
4. Claim(s) 4-7 and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jaffee, US 20060054265 A1 in view of in view of published JP 2890233 B2 as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Merrick, US 20200270871.
Jaffee and published JP 2890233 B2 is set forth above.
Jaffee in view of JP 2890233 B2 does not teach the claimed method limitations with respect to forming the “FR” conveying layer as set forth in claims 4-7.
The published patent application issued to Merrick teach joining a mat (fines layer) made of fibers or particles to an OSB layer to from a “FR” wood composite laminate (abstract, figures paragraphs 0019-0020 and 0028). Merrick teach applying the “FR” additives to the fines layer as claimed. Merrick et al., treats the particles that make up the “fines” layer before incorporation of the particles into the manufacturing process (i.e., “in-process”). The factory-applied treatment comprises adding ingredients or additives (using appropriate methods) that impart desired FR protection when exposed to a fire event. Ingredients, for example, include various borate-based chemistries, minerals, or combinations thereof that impart the desired protection (paragraph 0019). Specific examples of FR treatments include alumina trioxide, boric acid and sodium borate and combinations thereof (paragraph 0022). The fines layer may be pre-assembled into a mat or laminate prior to consolidation (bonding) to the other layers in the engineered wood-based composite during the manufacturing process (paragraph 0025). Merrick teach that treatment of the “fines” layer in a controlled setting (e.g., manufacturing facility) allows the FR treatment to be more thoroughly and consistently applied throughout the face layer of the product (for example, impregnated using pressure), thereby providing integrated and greater protection and fire resistance than a post-manufacturing process application. The fines layer may be FR treated as a pre-assembled (bonded) mat of particles or fibers or as discrete particles (paragraph 0028).
With specific regard to claim 4, Merrick teach the claimed in process addition of the “FR” additives as set forth above.
With specific regard to claims 6-7, Merrick teach that combinations of “FR” additives can be used. As such, the Examiner is of the position that using two or more types of “FR” additives would meet the limitations these claims. In other words, the teachings directed to using one or a combination of “FR” additives or chemistries meets the limitation of using the same or different first and second “FR” additives.
With specific regard to claim 5, Jaffee teach applying multiple “FR” non-woven layers to the OSB layer (see above). Furthermore, Jaffee teach the “FR” layers can also be formed as a composite mat (paragraph 0023). The Examiner is of the position that based on the combination of teachings it would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use more than one “FR” non-woven (woven layers as taught above) layers on one or both sides of the OSB layer. The motivation to use multiple “FR” non-woven (woven) layers is found in the desire to provide integrated and greater protection and fire resistance than a post-manufacturing process application.
With regard to claims 19 and 20, Merrick teach a resin-impregnated overlay factory is applied to the fines layer. The overlay includes a fire-resistant primer or coating (paragraph 0026).
It would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to form the “FR” non-woven (woven) layer of modified Jaffee using the method Merrick uses to form the fines layer (e.g., in process addition of “FR” additives) for the purpose of more thoroughly and consistently applying an “FR” additive throughout the face (non-woven) (woven) layer(s) of the product, thereby providing integrated and greater protection and fire resistance than a post-manufacturing process application.
Conclusion
5. Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LYNDA SALVATORE whose telephone number is (571)272-1482. The examiner can normally be reached M-F.
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, Marla McConnell can be reached at 571-270-7692. 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.
/LYNDA SALVATORE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1789
Prosecution Insights