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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The previous rejection under this heading is withdrawn due to the amendment to claim 3.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1 and 9, 10, 12-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schrul et al (US 2020/0108524; herein Schrul, already of record), in view of Ritter (US 20180126584). Regarding claim 1, Schrul teaches:
Blending a plurality of wood strands with one or more chemicals or adhesives (claim 1 steps a) and b) and claim 2)
Apply a fire-retardant material to at least some of said plurality of wood strands (claim 2)
Forming, on a forming line, a multi-layer strand mat from said plurality of wood strands, said multi-layer strand mat comprising a top surface (claim 1 step c))
Placing an intervening overlay layer on the top surface of the multi-layer strand mat (claim 1 step e) and the release paper of paragraph 0234)
In a press, applying heat and pressure to the multi-layer strand mat and intervening overlay layer to form a master blank, panel or board (claim 1 step f))
After removing the master blank, panel or board from the press, removing the intervening overlay layer from the top surface (paragraph 0234, the release paper is removed)
Schrul does not teach that the intervening overlay layer does not comprise release agents or treatments.
In the same field of endeavor Ritter teaches that one can use Kraft paper as an overlay, and this Kraft paper can be either untreated or treated (paragraph 0021).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to use untreated paper as an overlay, since the prior art has shown treated and untreated as equivalents for the same purpose (See MPEP 2144.06 II)
Regarding claims 9, 10, and 13-15:
Claims 9, 10, and 13-15 are directed to the size of the intervening overlay layer. Schrul, as previously discussed, teaches a release paper, but is silent to the size therefore. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have the needed size release paper in Schrul, since it has been held where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device (MPEP 2144.04 IV A)
Regarding claim 12:
As previously discussed Schrul teaches release paper, but is silent to the paper being kraft paper. As previously discussed Ritter teaches using kraft paper.
Since Schrul teaches paper, the use of the kraft paper of Ritter would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed, since it has been shown that a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options in their art. If this leads to an anticipated success, it is likely that it was not due to innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1397 (2007). In this instance there are only so many types of paper and type of paper usable in such processing, thus deciding to use kraft paper is well within the abilities of a skilled artisan.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schrul and Ritter as applied above, and in further view of Greten (US 3098781; already of record). Regarding claim 2, Schrul is silent to:
Further comprising the step of adding a fines layer to the multi0layer stand mat as the top surface
In the same field of endeavor Greten teaches having fines at the surface of the board to prevent telegraphing (column 1, lines 15-27, column 4, line 72 through column 5, line 16, and column 6, lines 8-17).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have the fines as the outer layer as taught by Greten, since it prevents migration of larger particles to the surface.
Claims 3, 4, 16, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schrul and Ritter as applied above, and in further view of Haataja et al (US 2004/0191553; herein Haataja, already of record). Regarding claim 3:
Wherein the fines layer comprises a second fire-retardant material
As previously discussed Schrul teaches adding a fire-retardant but is silent to fines, and Greten is silent to adding a fire-retardant to the fines.
However, in the same field of endeavor Haataja teaches adding a fire-retardant to fines for use as a top layer (paragraph 0037 and Figures 2-6)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have the fines of Greten mixed with fire-retardant since the board of Schrul is already mixed with fire-retardant and Haataja shows that is possible to mix fines and fire-retardant.
Regarding claim 4:
See remarks regarding claims 2 and 3.
Regarding claim 16:
The exact nature of the second fire resistant material of the combination being the same as the first is unknown, however it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to use the needed type of fire resistant material for the needed known purpose. The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use is obvious, MPEP 2144.07.
Regarding claim 17:
The exact nature of the surface fire resistant material of the combination being the same as the first is unknown, however it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to use the needed type of fire resistant material for the needed known purpose. The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use is obvious, MPEP 2144.07.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Schrul and Ritter as applied above, and in further view of Baxter et al (US 2010/0171233; herein Baxter, already of record). Regarding claim 5:
Schrul teaches removing the release paper, but not specifically via planing or sanding.
In the same field of endeavor Baxter teaches planing to remove unwanted material from the finished boards (paragraph 0076).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to plane the board in order to remove the release paper, since the release paper is unwanted material. It has been shown that a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options in their art. If this leads to an anticipated success, it is likely that it was not due to innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1397 (2007). In this instance there are only so many ways to remove unwanted material from a finish board, therefore the use of planing to do so is obvious when the desired end result is a clean board.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Schrul and Ritter as applied above, and in further view of Spica (US 2002/0007898; already of record).
Schrul teaches removing the release paper, but not specifically pressure washing.
In the same field of endeavor Spica teaches washing with a liquid to remove unwanted material from the finished boards (paragraph 0017).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to wash the board in order to remove the release paper, since the release paper is unwanted material. It has been shown that a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options in their art. If this leads to an anticipated success, it is likely that it was not due to innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1397 (2007). In this instance there are only so many ways to remove unwanted material from a finish board, and even fewer ways via washing (making pressure washing obvious) therefore the use of washing to do so is obvious when the desired end result is a clean board.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 9/6/2026 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Ritter makes the use of plain paper obvious.
However, some other arguments will be considered.
The Applicant argues that the paper layer of Schrul is not removed. However, Schrul explicitly removes the paper layer in paragraph 0234.
The Applicant appears to discuss unclaimed features in view of the coating layer of Schrul which seem separate from the paper layer on page 4 of the Remarks. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
The Applicant argues that since Schrul teaches a release compound on the paper the claims and secondary references regarding other means of paper removal are improper. The combination with Ritter which makes obvious the use of untreated kraft paper, would create a scenario that such paper could be stuck to the surface and need additional removal means.
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 TIMOTHY J KENNEDY whose telephone number is (571)270-7068. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8am-5pm.
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, Galen Hauth can be reached at 571-270-5516. 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.
/TIMOTHY KENNEDY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1743
Prosecution Insights