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 without traverse of Species A, I, and 4 in the reply filed on 9/5/2026 is acknowledged. The elected claims are 1-7, 9, and 13-14 and are examined herein. Claims 8 and 10-12 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged. Applicant has not complied with one or more conditions for receiving the benefit of an earlier filing date under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) as follows:
The later-filed application must be an application for a patent for an invention which is also disclosed in the prior application (the parent or original nonprovisional application or provisional application). The disclosure of the invention in the parent application and in the later-filed application must be sufficient to comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, except for the best mode requirement. See Transco Products, Inc. v. Performance Contracting, Inc., 38 F.3d 551, 32 USPQ2d 1077 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
The disclosure of the prior-filed application, Application No. 63/575,909 fails to provide adequate support or enablement in the manner provided by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph for one or more claims of this application. Claims 2 and 13 lack support in the provisional application. The provisional does not disclose mixing the mineral wool with the wood after a step of blending with resin as claimed in claim 2. The provisional also does not disclose making a second mixture. These claims are being examined using a filing date of 4/8/2025.
Claim Objections
Claims 6 and 7 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 7 appears to be a duplicate of claim 6. 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 “a strand mixture” but it is not clear if this is the same as the “first strand mixture” in claim 1 or an additional strand mixture. This will be interpreted to mean any strand mixture.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claims 1-5 and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Buffin (US 2024/0001587, made of record on the IDS dated 9/5/2026.)
Regarding claim 1, Buffin meets the claimed, A method of producing a manufactured wood panel, comprising the steps of: blending a plurality of wood strands with one or more chemicals, resins, or adhesives; (Buffin [0019]-[0020] and Figure 3 describe adding resins/wax to wood strands) forming a first strand mixture by mixing a first inorganic noncombustible material with least some of said plurality of wood strands; (Buffin [0020] describes adding zinc borate, ZnB, after mixing the wood strands and resin) forming, on a forming line, a strand mat comprising said first strand mixture, said strand mat comprising a top surface; (Buffin [0020] and Figure 3 describe laying the treated strands as layers on a processing line) and in a press, applying heat and pressure to the strand mat to form a master blank, panel or board (Buffin [0020] and Figure 3 describes heating and pressing to form boards.)
Regarding claim 2, Buffin meets the claimed, The method of claim 1, wherein the step of forming a strand mixture is performed after the step of blending (Buffin [0020] describes adding zinc borate, ZnB, after mixing the wood strands and resin.)
Regarding claim 3, The method of claim 1, wherein the strand mat is a multi-layer strand mat (Buffin [0020] and Figure 3 describe laying the treated strands as layers.)
Regarding claim 4, Buffin meets the claimed, The method of claim1, wherein the strand mat has three strand layers (Buffin Figure 3 describes three layers.)
Regarding claim 5, Buffin meets the claimed, The method of claim 1, wherein the step of forming a strand mat comprises the steps of: forming a bottom strand layer on the forming line; after forming the bottom strand layer, forming a core strand layer; after forming the core strand layer, forming a top strand layer; wherein at least one of said bottom strand layer, core strand layer, and top strand layer is formed from the first strand mixture (Buffin Figure 3 shows the bottom layer is formed first, then the core, then the top layer. All are formed from at least one wood strand/resin/ZnB mixture.)
Regarding claim 13, Buffin meets the claimed, The method of claim 5, further comprising the step of forming a second strand mixture by mixing a second inorganic noncombustible material with least some of said plurality of wood strands; wherein at least one of said bottom strand layer, core strand layer, and top strand layer is formed from the second strand mixture (Buffin Figure 3 shows a separate mixture is made for top/bottom than the core.)
Regarding claim 14, Buffin meets the claimed, A manufactured wood panel formed according to claim 5, wherein the manufactured wood panel comprises at least three strand layers, and at least one of said bottom strand layer, core strand layer, and top strand layer is formed from a strand mixture of wood strands and an inorganic noncombustible material (Buffin Figure 3 shows the bottom layer is formed first, then the core, then the top layer. All are formed from at least one wood strand/resin/ZnB mixture.)
Claims 1, 3-7, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Edwall (US 2020/0198175.)
Regarding claim 1, Edwall meets the claimed, A method of producing a manufactured wood panel, comprising the steps of: blending a plurality of wood strands with one or more chemicals, resins, or adhesives; (Edwall [0024] describes blending wood strands with additives including resin) forming a first strand mixture by mixing a first inorganic noncombustible material with least some of said plurality of wood strands; (Edwall [0021] and [0024] describe adding zinc borate to the strands in the blending step) forming, on a forming line, a strand mat comprising said first strand mixture, said strand mat comprising a top surface; (Edwall [0024]-[0025] describe forming layers of strands, [0030] describes an in-line process which indicates there is a manufacturing line) and in a press, applying heat and pressure to the strand mat to form a master blank, panel or board (Edwall [0027] describe pressing with high temperature to form a board.)
Regarding claim 3, Edwall meets the claimed, The method of claim 1, wherein the strand mat is a multi-layer strand mat (Edwall [0025] describes three or more layers.)
Regarding claim 4, Edwall meets the claimed, The method of claim1, wherein the strand mat has three strand layers (Edwall [0025] describes three or more layers.)
Regarding claim 5, Edwall meets the claimed, The method of claim 1, wherein the step of forming a strand mat comprises the steps of: forming a bottom strand layer on the forming line; after forming the bottom strand layer, forming a core strand layer; after forming the core strand layer, forming a top strand layer; wherein at least one of said bottom strand layer, core strand layer, and top strand layer is formed from the first strand mixture (Edwall [0025] describes forming three plies as a mat, the layers are must be formed individually an sequentially for “plies” to be formed.)
Regarding claim 6, Edwall meets the claimed, The method of claim 5, wherein the top strand layer and core strand layer are formed from the first strand mixture (Edwall [0025] describes each layer is made from the treated strands.)
Regarding claim 7, Edwall meets the claimed, The method of claim 5, wherein the top strand layer and core strand layer are formed from the first strand mixture (Edwall [0025] describes each layer is made from the treated strands.)
Regarding claim 14, A manufactured wood panel formed according to claim 5, wherein the manufactured wood panel comprises at least three strand layers, and at least one of said bottom strand layer, core strand layer, and top strand layer is formed from a strand mixture of wood strands and an inorganic noncombustible material (Edwall [0025] describes each of the three layers is made from the treated strands.)
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Buffin as applied to claim 5 above modified by Akbarian-Tefaghi (US 2022/0134597) and additionally or alternatively in view of Edwall as applied to claim 5 above in view of Akbarian-Tefaghi (US 2022/0134597).
Regarding claim 9, neither Buffin nor Edwall describe mineral wool and do not meet the claimed, The method of claim 5, wherein the first inorganic noncombustible material comprises mineral wool.
Analogous in the field of wood panels, Akbarian-Tefaghi meets the claimed, The method of claim 5, wherein the first inorganic noncombustible material comprises mineral wool (Akbarian-Tefaghi [0093] describes engineered wood product boards which include mineral wool.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date to combine the method of making the wood boards as described in either Buffin or Edwall with the mineral wool additive as described in Akbarian-Tefaghi for fire resistance, see Akbarian-Tefaghi [0093].
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over modified Edwall (US 2020/0198175.)
Regarding claim 2, Edwall describes mixing the additives together in one step not a separate step of mixing the ZnB after the first mixing step and does not meet the claimed, The method of claim 1, wherein the step of forming a strand mixture is performed after the step of blending, however, the order of mixing ingredients is obvious in the absence of unexpected results, see MPEP §2144.04(IV)(C). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date to simply mix in the ZnB after the wood and other additives are mixed to achieve the expected result of forming the strand mixture.
Claims 2 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Edwall (US 2020/0198175) modified by Buffin (US 2024/0001587.)
Regarding claim 2, Edwall describes mixing the additives together in one step not a separate step of mixing the ZnB after the first mixing step and does not meet the claimed, The method of claim 1, wherein the step of forming a strand mixture is performed after the step of blending.
Analogous in the field of producing fire-resistant wood panels, Buffin meets the claimed, The method of claim 1, wherein the step of forming a strand mixture is performed after the step of blending (Buffin [0020] describes adding zinc borate, ZnB, after mixing the wood strands and resin.)
The courts have held that substituting one prior art element for another to yield predictable results would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date, see MPEP §2143. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date to substitute the step of mixing the ZnB during the resin mixing step as described in Edwall with the step of mixing the ZnB after the first blending step as described in Buffin because it is a known method of adding ZnB to the wood/resin mixture. Additionally, the order of mixing ingredients is obvious in the absence of unexpected results, see MPEP §2144.04(IV)(C).
Regarding claim 13, Edwall does not disclose a second mixture and does not meet the claimed, The method of claim 5, further comprising the step of forming a second strand mixture by mixing a second inorganic noncombustible material with least some of said plurality of wood strands; wherein at least one of said bottom strand layer, core strand layer, and top strand layer is formed from the second strand mixture.
Buffin meets the claimed, The method of claim 5, further comprising the step of forming a second strand mixture by mixing a second inorganic noncombustible material with least some of said plurality of wood strands; wherein at least one of said bottom strand layer, core strand layer, and top strand layer is formed from the second strand mixture (Buffin Figure 3 shows a separate mixture is made for top/bottom than the core.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date to combine the single mixture of Edwall with the second mixture of Buffin in order to include additional concentrations off additives, see Edwall [0024]-[0025] and [0028].
Claims 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Buffin (US 2024/0001587) modified by Edwall (US 2020/0198175.)
Regarding claims 6 and 7, Buffin [0021] describes the top and core layers may be made from the same materials but does not explicitly describe that they are from the exact same mixture and does not explicitly meet the claimed, The method of claim 5, wherein the top strand layer and core strand layer are formed from the first strand mixture.
Analogous in the field of wood layered structures, Edwall meets the claimed, The method of claim 5, wherein the top strand layer and core strand layer are formed from the first strand mixture (Edwall [0025] describes each layer is made from the treated strands.)
The courts have held that substituting one known prior art element for another to yield predictable results would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date, see MPEP §2143. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date to substitute the separate mixing step as described in Buffin for the step of making the top and core layer from the same mixture as described in Edwall in order to efficiently form three layers of plies without wasting additives, see Edwall [0030].
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
EP2915640: see English translation provided at page 12 beginning at line 21 describing forming a three layer OSB with wood chips and glue and hot pressing the layers
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VICTORIA BARTLETT whose telephone number is (571)272-4953. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 am-5:00 pm EST.
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, Sam Zhao can be reached at 571-270-5343. 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.
/V.B./ Examiner, Art Unit 1744
/John J. DeRusso/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1744
Prosecution Insights