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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of group I in the reply filed on 11/13/2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the examiner appears to equate particulate material with fibers. This is not found persuasive because given that there is nothing in the present claim that excludes fibers to be not considered as a particulate material. In other words, the claim is broadly open to consider any material as a particulate material.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 13-15 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected group II, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 11/13/2025.
Claim Objections
Claim 18 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 18 recites fibers. It should be fibrous material.
Claim 18 recites “between 4 cm, and 20 cm”. it should be “between 4 cm and 20 cm”.
Claim 20 recites “the polyol consists for”. It should be “the polyol consists of”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim 2 is 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.
Claim 2 recites “core layer is arranged between one or two surface layers”. If the claim only requires one layer, it is not clear how core layer is arranged between one layer.
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.
Claim(s) 1-5, 8-12, 16-17 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alberts et al. (US 2014/0080973).
Regarding claims 1-2 and 10, Alberts discloses a composite panel (abstract, 0083) comprising individual layers, i.e. one individual layer corresponds to claimed core layer and another individual layer corresponds to claimed surface layer bonded to the core layer, (0029) wherein the composite panel comprises filler in form of particles and fibers (abstract) bonded with a resin (0035) and the resin comprising a polymer derived from aliphatic polyalcohol with 2-15 carbon atoms such as glycerol, i.e. an aliphatic polyol with 2-15 carbon atoms, (abstract) with an aliphatic polyacid comprising tricarboxylic acid, i.e. aliphatic polycarboxylic acid with 3-15 carbon atoms, (abstract, 0049). Therefore, when the core layer of Alberts comprising particles bonded with a resin, it meets the claimed limitation of core layer comprises particulate material bonded with a resin and when the surface layer comprises fibers bonded with a resin, it meets the claimed limitation of surface layer comprises fibrous material bonded with a resin.
With respect to the limitation of the polymer has an extent of polymerization of at least 0.6, it is noted that Alberts discloses ratio between the number of OH group and the number of acid groups which includes 1:1 (0056). Therefore, it is clear that the extent of polymerization of Alberts would overlap that presently claimed.
With respect to the ratio of a resin content in the core layer to a total resin content in the surface layer, Alberts discloses that the polymer makes it possible to obtain flame retardant properties without the use of flame retardant additives (0088).
Since the instant specification is silent to unexpected results, the specific ratio of a resin content in the core layer to a total resin content in the surface layer is not considered to confer patentability to the claims. As the flame retardant properties is a variable that can be modified, among others, by adjusting the ratio of a resin content in the core layer to a total resin content in the surface layer, the precise ratio would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed ratio cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the ratio of resin content in the core layer and the surface layer including that presently claimed to obtain the desired flame retardant properties wherein having more polymer in the surface layer would provide greater flame retardance on the surface and help to inhibit the further spread of flames into the core layer (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223).
Regarding claim 3, Alberts discloses the panel of claim 1, wherein the thickness of panel is 2 mm to 2.5 cm (0083) therefore when the core layer has a thickness of 1.5 mm and the skin layer has a thickness of 1 mm, it meets the present claim.
Regarding claim 8, Alberts discloses the panel of claim 1, wherein Alberts discloses surface layer on the core layer as explained above and therefore it is clear that at least top and/or bottom side of the panel is covered with at least one surface layer.
Regarding claims 9 and 19, Alberts discloses the panel of claim 1, wherein the resin content of the panel is at least 2 wt% (abstract).
Regarding claim 11, Alberts discloses the panel of claim 1, wherein the panel have thickness in the range of 1 mm to 4 cm and in particular 2 mm to 2.5 cm (0083). When the core layer has a thickness of 1 mm and the skin layer has a thickness of 1 mm, it meets the present claim.
Alternatively, one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated by common sense to select a 1:1 ratio, a ratio that falls within the presently claimed thickness, absent evidence of unexpected or surprising results. Case law holds that "[h]aving established that this knowledge was in the art, the examiner could then properly rely... on a conclusion of obviousness, 'from common knowledge and common sense of the person of ordinary skill in the art within any specific hint or suggestion in a particular reference.'" In re Bozek, 416 F.2d 1385, 1390, 163 USPQ 545, 549 (CCPA 1969).
Regarding claim 12, Alberts discloses the panel of claim 1, wherein the polyacid comprises at least 50 wt% of tricarboxylic acid (0049) and/or the polyol consists of at least 50 mole% of glycerol (0038).
Regarding claim 16, Alberts discloses the panel of claim 1, wherein Alberts discloses the panel comprising individual layers as explained above. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use any number of individual layer including two surface layers as presently claimed to meet end users requirements.
Regarding claims 4-5 and 17, Alberts discloses the panel of claim 1, wherein the panel have thickness in the range of 1 mm to 4 cm and in particular 2 mm to 2.5 cm (0083). When the core layer has a thickness of 1 mm and the skin layer has a thickness of 1 mm, it meets the present claim.
Alternatively, one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated by common sense to select a 1:1 ratio, a ratio that falls within the presently claimed thickness, absent evidence of unexpected or surprising results. Case law holds that "[h]aving established that this knowledge was in the art, the examiner could then properly rely... on a conclusion of obviousness, 'from common knowledge and common sense of the person of ordinary skill in the art within any specific hint or suggestion in a particular reference.'" In re Bozek, 416 F.2d 1385, 1390, 163 USPQ 545, 549 (CCPA 1969).
Regarding particulate material aspect ratio, Alberts discloses particulate material is powder (0023) which would necessarily have aspect ratio less than 10:1. Further, Alberts discloses platelike particulate have aspect ratio of at least 3 which would overlap the presently claimed value.
Alberts does not specifically disclose a density of the core layer. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a density of core layer according to the end users requirement of the weight of the panel as a lighter panel would require lower density as presently claimed.
Regarding claim 20, Alberts discloses the panel of claim 1, wherein Alberts discloses polycarboxylic acid is citric acid, i.e. polycarboxylic acid comprises 100 wt% of citric acid, (0054) and the polyol consists of at least at least 95 mole% of glycerol (0039).
Regarding the ratio of the resin content, Alberts discloses that the polymer makes it possible to obtain flame retardant properties without the use of flame retardant additives (0088). Since the instant specification is silent to unexpected results, the specific ratio of a resin content in the core layer to a total resin content in the surface layer is not considered to confer patentability to the claims. As the flame retardant properties is a variable that can be modified, among others, by adjusting the ratio of a resin content in the core layer to a total resin content in the surface layer, the precise ratio would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed ratio cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the ratio of resin content in the core layer and the surface layer including that presently claimed to obtain the desired flame retardant properties (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223).
Regarding a ratio of a thickness, the panel have thickness in the range of 1 mm to 4 cm and in particular 2 mm to 2.5 cm (0083). When the core layer has a thickness of 5 mm and the skin layer has a thickness of 1 mm, it meets the present claim.
Claim(s) 6-7 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alberts et al. (US 2014/0080973) in view of Galle (US 2017/0320287).
Regarding claims 6-7 and 18, Alberts discloses the panel of claim 1 but fails to disclose fiber being Jute or flax with a length of at least 4 cm.
Galle discloses composite board comprising jute or flax fiber with a length of at least 4 cm to obtain low density, less abrasive behaviour, good dimensional stability and harmlessness (0024-0025 and 0057).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to the specific fiber of Galle in the panel including the surface layer of Alberts to obtain low density, less abrasive behaviour, good dimensional stability and harmlessness.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SAMIR SHAH whose telephone number is (571)270-1143. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00am - 5:00pm.
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, Callie Shosho can be reached at 571-272-1123. 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.
/SAMIR SHAH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1787