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
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-14, 16-17, and 19-20 are pending.
Claims 12-14, 16-17, and 19-20 are withdrawn from further consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 1-6 and 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent 6,800,352 to Hejna et al. cited in previous Office action (herein Hejna) in view of U.S. Pre-grant Publication 2016/0168393 to Kreh cited in previous Office action (herein Kreh).
Regarding claim 1, Hejna teaches a method of manufacturing a product comprising a wood-based composite panel and a radiant barrier material (abstract). Hejna teaches that the method comprises adhering a radiant barrier material to a plywood panel (Col 14, lines 7-14) using a second resin (Col 14, lines 51-55) wherein the second resin can be a liquid (Col 21, lines 60-61) epoxy (Col 21, line 47). Hejna teaches that the second resin cures while the radiant barrier material is being pressed onto the composite panel (Col 21, lines 28-32). Hejna also teaches that the radiant barrier material is provided with a plurality of apertures (Col 25, lines 27-29). Hejna also teaches that it can be desirable to have fire retardancy (Col 12, lines 20-32).
Hejna is silent as to the second resin being an intumescent composition.
Kreh teaches an epoxy-based intumescent fireproofing coating (abstract) wherein the coating includes one or more layers of non-epoxy intumescent material within layers of epoxy intumescent material (paragraph 0013). Kreh teaches that the epoxy intumescent material layers comprise epoxy as a binder (paragraph 0022) and can be applied via roller, spray, brush (paragraph 0031), i.e. applied as a liquid. Kreh teaches that the non-epoxy intumescent layer can include a non-epoxy resin as a binder (paragraph 0034) and can be applied via a liquid carrier (paragraph 0036). Kreh teaches that the intumescent compositions can include a carbon source, i.e. a charring agent, and a spumific, i.e. a blowing agent (paragraph 0041). Kreh also teaches that a mesh can be applied to the layers (paragraph 0059) before or during the curing of the composition (paragraph 0071), i.e. the coating exhibits adhesiveness sufficient to adhere mesh to a substrate.
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 second resin of Hejna to be the intumescent coating of Kreh in order to provide fireproofing (paragraph 0003) that performs better than other known coatings (paragraph 0009).
Regarding claims 2-5, Hejna and Kreh teach all the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above.
Hejna teaches that the apertures in the radiant barrier can be a hole, gap, slit, or other opening or orifice (Col 10, lines 66-67), and the apertures can be any suitable size or shape (Col 25, lines 41-47). Furthermore, mere changes in size, proportion, or shape have been held to be obvious such that the claimed limitations are render obvious. See MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A&B).
Regarding claim 6, Hejna and Kreh teach all the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above.
Hejna teaches that the radiant barrier material can be directly adhered to the wood-based composite panel without a backing material via the second resin (Col 21, lines 19-25), i.e. the radiant backing material is in direct contact with the second resin (or the intumescent coating in the case of Hejna modified according to Kreh).
Regarding claims 9 and 10, Hejna and Kreh teach all the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above.
Hejna teaches that the apertures can be introduced into the radiant barrier material before or after it is brought into contact with the wood-based composite panel (Col 25, lines 32-40).
Claim(s) 7 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hejna and Kreh as applied above and in further view of U.S. Pre-grant Publication 2022/0002563 to Shepherd et al. cited in previous Office action (herein Shepherd).
Regarding claims 7 and 8, Hejna and Kreh teach all the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above.
Kreh is silent as to there being any adhesion promoters in the intumescent coating.
Shepherd teaches an intumescent coating material comprising a binder (abstract) as well as a blowing agent and char forming additive (paragraph 0105). Shepherd teaches that the coating material can further include silane-based adhesion promoter (paragraphs 0130-0131).
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 coating material of Kreh to include the silane-based adhesion promoter of Shepherd because it is known in the art as being suitable for the intended purpose. See MPEP 2144.07.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hejna and Kreh as applied above and in further view of U.S. Pre-grant Publication 2013/0101839 to Dion cited in previous Office action (herein Dion).
Regarding claim 11, Hejna and Kreh teach all the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above.
Hejna and Kreh are silent as to basis weight of the second resin or intumescent coating.
Dion teaches a fire retardant intumescent coating composition for overlaying a wood substrate (abstract). Dion teaches that the layer containing the intumescent coating composition (paragraph 0010) has a coating weight of at least 50 to 300 gsm (paragraph 0046) which is close to the range recited in the instant claims: 30-60 grams per square foot, or about 320-640 gsm. Examiner notes that the only prohibition regarding coating weight taught by Dion is against lower coating weights (paragraph 0046). It has been held that obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. See MPEP 2144.05 (I).
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 second resin/intumescent coating of Hejna and Kreh to have the coating weight taught by Dion because it is known in the art as being suitable for the intended purpose. See MPEP 2144.07.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5 March 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues modifying Hejna to use the intumescent coating of Kreh would destroy the function of Hejna because the intumescent coating would cause delamination (Remarks, page 7). As noted above, the intumescent coating of Kreh exhibits an adhesiveness especially given that Kreh teaches that a reinforcing mesh can be located at the surface of the coating (paragraph 0063) which would not be possible if the coating did not exhibit adhesive properties. Furthermore, the resins used as binders in the coating of Kreh, e.g. epoxy, polyvinyl acetate, polyacrylate, and/or polyurethane, are well known in the art as being used in thermosetting adhesive resins. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation that the intumescent coating of Kreh would be usable as the second resin in the panel of Hejna.
Applicant argues that the apertures in the radiant barrier taught by Hejna are fundamentally different from the claimed perforations (Remarks, pages 7-8). As noted by Applicant, the apertures of Hejna are present to allow vapor to pass through the radiant barrier (Col 25, lines 27-28). Applicant has provided no showing of evidence that apertures designed to permit vapor passage are fundamentally different from perforations designed to permit the flow of gas. Therefore, Applicant’s arguments are not found persuasive.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZACHARY M DAVIS whose telephone number is (571)272-6957. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7-4:30, off 2nd Friday.
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, Maria V Ewald can be reached at 571-272-8519. 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.
/ZACHARY M DAVIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1783