DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment filed 6/22/26 has been entered. Currently claims 1, 2, 4-13 are pending and claim 3 is cancelled.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
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 1, 2, 4-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Rudisill et al (US Publication 20210396010).
Rudisill discloses a structural insulated wall and roof sheathing system. The structural panel comprises an OSB oriented strandboard (paragraph 55) with a plurality of strands (paragraph 56). A paper overlay was applied over the substrate to maintain complete coverage (paragraph 105). The paper overlay and substrate are embossed by a mat that is pressed onto the surface under a high temperature (paragraph 113). This is the same method being used within the present invention; therefore, both the paper and wood substrate will be embossed. Further it states that some of the embossments can project into the surface of the panel (paragraph 76). The pattern appears to be a random pattern of raised areas (paragraph 72) with a heigh up to 25mils (paragraph 75). The features of these embossments can be the same or differ in size and shape (paragraph 71), therefore it will read on applicant’s irregular pebbled texture. In the alternative it would have been obvious to have formed an irregular pebbled texture as the shapes and sizes and placement of the embossments can be varied to form a pebbled structure. Rudisill discloses that the elements can be similar or different with a random pattern appearance (paragraphs 71 and 75). Therefore, it would read on applicant’s claim of emulating pebbled stucco and being a random pattern. In the alternative it would have been obvious to have formed a pebbled stucco texture with a random pattern as Rudisill discloses possible patterns being present and it would be an aesthetic design choice to have formed such pattern of a pebbled stucco texture with a random pattern
As to claim 2, Rudisill discloses that the elements can be similar or different with a random pattern appearance (paragraphs 71 and 75). Therefore, it would read on applicant’s claim of emulating pebbled stucco and being a random pattern. In the alternative it would have been obvious to have formed a pebbled stucco texture with a random pattern as Rudisill discloses possible patterns being present and it would be an aesthetic design choice to have formed such pattern of a pebbled stucco texture with a random pattern.
As to claims 4-7, Rudisill discloses that the elements have a length and a width with an elongated shape (paragraph 74). Further as seen in figure 4a. the angle at which the elements appear to be would be about 45 degrees. In the alternative it would have been to have modified Rudisill and had the angle for the elements be less than 70 and more than 20 in order to prevent wrinkling and tearing of the paper.
As to claim 8, Rudisill discloses that the distance between the peaks and valleys can be 10/1000 of an inch (paragraph 113).
As to claims 9 and 10, Rudisill discloses first and second textured features within the features can be of similar or different shapes sizes and patterns (paragraphs 71-72. However, is silent to horizonal middle elements with some connected to adjacent high elements. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have had the first element be the high elements and the second elements be the middle elements as Rudisill discloses that these elements can be different sizes and shapes and therefore would be an aesthetic design choice. As to connecting the middle to the high elements Rudisill teaches that any shape and pattern can be formed and therefore one of ordinary skill in the art could have connected these elements to form an aesthetically pleasing pattern of elements as Rudisill teaches one how to adjust the elements in any desired way of varying the distance and heigh and shape of these elements.
As to claims 11-13, Rudisill disclose that the paper overlay embossed is prevent wrinkling and tearing of the paper (paragraph 105). Therefore, it will inherently prevent underlying telegraphing from the substrate.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/22/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s argue that Rudisill does not disclose an actual random pattern embossment and that the pattern is structured pattern. The examiner respectfully disagrees and argues that the claims require that the pattern varies randomly in the x, y and z directions. Rudisill discloses that the pattern can be formed from major channels and minor indentations and that these indentations can vary in length and width and can have different shapes or sizes. Further any number of these minor indentations within the channel can be used. Therefore since these indentations appear to be random and can be varied to any desired pattern by adjusting the appearance, the pattern formed can would be considered to have a pattern than varies randomly in the x, y and z directions as to one person the pattern can be random. Further a random arrangement of indentations could still form an ordered pattern as that is a random outcome of the pattern.
Applicant’s argue that the invention claims an actual irregular and random pattern not merely a pattern that appears to be random. The examiner respectfully disagrees and argues that the term varies randomly is a very board and the art of Rudisill would read on the claimed limitation. Further a random arrangement of indentations could still form an ordered pattern as that is a random outcome of the pattern. Since Rudisill allows for many different shapes, different sizes, amounts and lengths and widths one could form this pattern to vary randomly along the x, y and z directions.
Applicant’s argue that the overlay 30 will not inherently prevent telegraphing. The examiner respectfully disagrees and argues that if flakes from underneath are pushed up it will give the paper overlay a low quality look. Therefore the overlay will inherently prevent telegraphing to maintain a high quality look.
Applicant’s argue that Rudisill does not meet the limitations of claim 4. The examiner respectfully disagrees and argues that Rudisill allows for many different shapes, and different sizes. The pattern seen in example 4a is one type of pattern that is conceived within the Rudisill reference and from that pattern it looks like the angle is the same at 45 degrees and the spacing of the pattern changes. Further since Rudisill discloses multiple shapes and sizes and height range the pattern of claim 4 would be met or in the alternative be obvious.
Conclusion
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 CHRISTOPHER M POLLEY whose telephone number is (571)270-5734. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday from 8am till 4:30 pm.
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, Mark Ruthkosky can be reached at 5712721291. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER M POLLEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1785
Prosecution Insights