Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/714,284

METHOD FOR PRODUCING A LAMINATE OF WOOD AND CEMENTITIOUS COMPOSITIONS

Non-Final OA §103§112
Filed
May 29, 2024
Examiner
SELLS, JAMES D
Art Unit
1745
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
Empa Eidgenössische Materialprüfungs-Und Forschungsanstalt
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
81%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 7m
To Grant
93%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 81% — above average
81%
Career Allow Rate
710 granted / 874 resolved
+16.2% vs TC avg
Moderate +12% lift
Without
With
+11.8%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 7m
Avg Prosecution
24 currently pending
Career history
898
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.1%
-39.9% vs TC avg
§103
42.4%
+2.4% vs TC avg
§102
31.7%
-8.3% vs TC avg
§112
14.2%
-25.8% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 874 resolved cases

Office Action

§103 §112
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 . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 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 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) 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kostic et al (“Timber-mortar composites…) in view of Burckhardt et al (US 2017/0292050). Regarding claim 1, Kostic discloses a method for producing a laminate, wherein: (i) a wood body is provided, (ii) the wood body is coated on its top face with an adhesive applied in liquid form, (iii) the still-wet applied adhesive is overcoated with a liquid cementitious composition, and (iv) the liquid cementitious composition and the adhesive are each cured. Kostic does not disclose that the adhesive comprises at least one silane-group-containing polymer which is liquid at room temperature and at least one amine curing agent. However, Kostic further indicates that the use of a silane composition with amine functionalities is advantageous (see Kostic: page 832, "4. Conclusion"): "the inclusion of a silane composition (with amine functionalities) improved the final properties by forming covalent bonds between the treated wood and the epoxy functionalities of the adhesive". On this basis, a person skilled in the art knows that the use of a silane and amine compound has a positive effect on the adhesion between layers. Burckhardt discloses an adhesive suitable for wood and concrete, the adhesive comprising at least one silane-group-containing polymer which is liquid at room temperature, at least one epoxy liquid resin, and at least one amine hardener. A person skilled in the art seeking to benefit from the effects of the silane compound and the amine compound would not be dissuaded from using the adhesive composition in Burckhardt in the method in Kostic, instead of performing the pre- treatment, and would thereby arrive at the subject matter of claim 1. Kostic further discloses employing beechwood and curing at 20°C (i.e. room temperature). Burckhardt discloses the silane group contains silicon (see paragraph [0015]), various epoxy resins (see paragraphs [[0056]-[0061] and may employ materials such as cement or fillers (see paragraph [0179]). Further, it is the examiner’s position that the wood and adhesive thicknesses and polymer ratios are within the purview of one having ordinary skill in the art and would have been obvious to employ based on the physical requirements of the materials being manufactured. 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 2, 8 and 13 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. Claim 2, line 2, “preferably” is indefinite and needs to be rephrased. Claim 2, line 3, “especially” is indefinite and needs to be rephrased. Claim 8, line 3, “optionally” is indefinite and needs to be rephrased. Claim 13, line 3, “optionally” is indefinite and needs to be rephrased. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES D SELLS whose telephone number is (571)272-1237. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 8:30-5. 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, Phillip Tucker can be reached at 571-272-1095. 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. JAMES D. SELLS Primary Examiner Art Unit 1745 /JAMES D SELLS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1745
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

May 29, 2024
Application Filed
Feb 04, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §103, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12600055
Hollow Artificial Log And Manufacturing Method Therefor
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12598915
CONDENSED CYCLIC COMPOUND, LIGHT-EMITTING DEVICE INCLUDING THE CONDENSED CYCLIC COMPOUND, AND ELECTRONIC APPARATUS INCLUDING THE LIGHT-EMITTING DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12590665
Monitoring of Lined Pipeline
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12583187
BELT MOLDING MANUFACTURING METHOD
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12570876
WATER-DISPERSED PRESSURE-SENSITIVE ADHESIVE COMPOSITION AND PRESSURE-SENSITIVE ADHESIVE SHEET FOR RE-PEELING
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
81%
Grant Probability
93%
With Interview (+11.8%)
2y 7m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 874 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