US 10955357

I'll search for this specific patent number and check for any litigation/docket references.

Let me verify litigation/docket status and confirm bibliographic details.

Let me do one final check for any USPTO proceedings (PTAB) or court dockets tied to this number.

US Patent 10,955,357 — Summary

Searches performed: I queried Google Patents/Justia for the exact number 10955357 (no similar numbers), and searched USPTO/PTAB and CAFC 2026 materials for litigation or appeals involving it.

Bibliographic data

Family members (same priority): EP 3216574 B1, CA 3012550 A1, RU 2728666 C2, UA 123590 C2, WO 2017/153297 A1, ES 2759877 T3, PL 3216574 T3, HU E047867 T2, PT 3216574 T.

Abstract (verbatim)

"The invention relates to a method for producing an OSB, wherein a scattered mat formed by strands adhered in multiple layers is pressed in a hot press to form a panel with a desired thickness, comprising the following steps: a) scanning the surface of an upper side of the mat or of the pressed panel to determine uneven areas and/or faults; b) determining position data of the determined uneven areas and/or faults; c) determining the volumes of the individual uneven areas and/or faults; d) targeted filling of the uneven areas and/or faults with a filling material, based on the determined position data and volumes, wherein e) the filling material is scattered with a scattering device."

Plain-language overview of the independent claims

Claim 1 — "scan, map, and selectively patch" method. A method of making OSB where glued strands are scattered into multiple layers and pressed in a hot press. The claim requires the machine to:

1. Scan the top surface of the mat or of the pressed panel to find uneven spots/defects;
2. Determine position data (where they are);
3. Determine the volumes of the individual uneven spots/defects (i.e., how much material each will need);
4. Target-fill those specific spots with filler, using a scattering device, based on that position and volume data;
5. Account for later compression when portioning the filler;
6. Overfill each spot so the powder forms a pyramid-shaped heap, then pre-compress with a roller under pressure; and
7. After pre-compression, scatter an additional quantity of the same filler composition across the entire top surface.

The point: OSBs are too rough to laminate (depressions up to ~4 mm), so instead of adding a costly fine-chip line, the process locates and fills only the real depressions, then levels the whole surface with a thin uniform powder layer — all under computer control (see dependent claim 10).

Claim 22 — variant independent claim. Same scan → position data → volume → targeted scatter-fill backbone, but separately requires:

• That when the uneven spots are in the surface of the mat or undivided pressed panel, the surface is subsequently pressed into its final smooth form in a press (i.e., a Conti press); and
• Overfilling the spots with filler to form a heap of powder, then pre-compressing, then scattering the same filler composition over the entire top surface after pre-compression.

(Note claim 22 does not require the "pyramid-shaped" heap wording or the roller specifically — those appear in claim 1 — which is the main structural difference between the two independent claims.)

Notable dependents: line scanner (cl. 3); melamine and/or phenol resin (cl. 7); wood flour 30–60 wt% (cl. 8); computer assistance (cl. 10); the "2 mm depth / 25 mm extent" threshold for filling (cl. 19); digital x-y-z surface map used to compute fill volume (cl. 20); tolerating predefined small uneven portions (cl. 18).

Specification parameters of record: filler = wood flour + phenol resin powder at 1:1 weight ratio, scattered density 0.4 g/cm³, ~30% overfill relative to depression volume, harden at 200 °C / 30 kg/cm² / 40 s.

Dockets / litigation

No CAFC 2026 appeal, PTAB trial, or district-court case involving US 10,955,357 was found in the searches run. My searches turned up (a) general 2026 CAFC roundups referencing unrelated patents, and (b) third-party-database reporting that Swiss Krono Tec has faced 3 EPO oppositions (none of which the source identifies as this patent). I do not have authoritative confirmation of any US litigation or PTAB proceeding for this patent — treat the absence of results as "not found," not as proof none exists. A definitive check would be USPTO PatentCenter/PTAB APIs and PACER/Docket Navigator, which I could not query directly here.

Two coincidental ID collisions (flagged per literal-ID rule)

Searches for the bare string 10955357 returned unrelated records that share the numeral, not the patent:

• An NHTSA complaint record, internal NHTSA # 10955357 (2015 Ford Explorer, exhaust smell);
• A Chinese administrative-penalty table listing a company with row ID 10955357.

These are not the patent and should not be conflated with US 10,955,357.

Uncertainty note: The bibliographic facts, abstract, and claim text above are taken from the authoritative full Google Patents text of US 10,955,357 B2 supplied in the prompt, corroborated by Justia. The only material uncertainty is the litigation/docket search, which was inconclusive rather than negative.

I'll search for litigation involving US Patent 10,955,357 specifically.

Let me run more targeted searches on litigation databases.

Let me try more specific searches on litigation databases and court records.

Litigation Search Results: US Patent 10,955,357

Bottom line: I found no evidence that US Patent 10,955,357 has ever been asserted in litigation — no district court cases, no ITC investigations, and no PTAB (IPR/PGR) proceedings.

What the patent is

US 10,955,357 B2, titled "Method for producing an OSB," is owned by SWISS KRONO Tec AG (Lucerne, Switzerland). Inventors: Norbert Kalwa and Torsten Kopp. It claims priority to EP16159708.3 (filed 2016-03-10), was filed via PCT/EP2017/055079 on 2017-03-03, published as US 2018/0372651 A1 (2018-12-27), and granted 2021-03-23. It is currently active, with an adjusted expiration of 2037-04-25, and the 4th-year maintenance fee was paid 2024-09-12.

What I searched and what I found

I searched for the specific number in the following forms: 10955357, 10,955,357, "US10955357," and combinations with the assignee ("Swiss Krono"), plus terms like "litigation," "infringement," "lawsuit," "complaint," and references to litigation-tracking portals (Unified Patents litigation caselist, Docket Alarm, CourtListener/PACER, Patexia).

• Result: nothing hits US 10,955,357. The searches returned unrelated cases involving other patents (e.g., Dolby/Unified Patents; Tempr v. Reverie involving US 8,909,357; a Reverie design patent D720,553; etc.). None of these involve US 10,955,357. I have flagged these deliberately so you can see they are not the patent you asked about.

Related "family" activity (not litigation)

For completeness, the patent's international family members are: EP3216574B1, CA3012550A1, RU2728666C2, UA123590C2, WO2017153297A1, ES2759877T3, PL3216574T3, HUE047867T2, and PT3216574T. These are prosecution/co-family records, not litigation.

The patent has also been cited by later applications/patents (e.g., CA3047741A1; DE102019219508A1; EP4029668B1; PL4166294T3; CN117016577B), but mere citation in another patent's prosecution is not litigation against this patent.

Caveats (important)

1. I was unable to directly open the Unified Patents litigation caselist, PACER, or CourtListener for a query on this specific number within my search budget, so I cannot claim to have exhaustively checked every docket.
2. A negative finding from web search is not the same as a certified litigation search. Litigation data lags, and some district court complaints (especially newly filed or sealed ones) may not surface in public web results.
3. If you need a defensible, complete answer for a legal purpose, run a paid/direct docket search (LexisNexis, Westlaw Litigation Analytics, Docket Alarm/Patexia, or PACER's federal docket search) keyed to the exact patent number and to the assignee "SWISS KRONO Tec AG," and also check the PTO's PTAB and Assignment databases.

Conclusion: On the evidence available, there is no known litigation involving US Patent 10,955,357. If litigation exists, it is not discoverable through the public sources and search queries I was able to run.

PTAB / AIA Trial Activity — U.S. Patent No. 10,955,357 B2

"Method for producing an OSB" · Swiss Krono Tec AG (assignee) · Inventors: Norbert Kalwa, Torsten Kopp
Granted 2021-03-23 · Priority 2016-03-10 · Filed (US) 2017-03-03 · App. No. 15/780,515 · Adjusted expiration 2037-04-25 · Status: Active (4th-year maintenance fee paid 2024-09-12)

---

Proceedings overview

Total AIA trial proceedings on file: 0. The structured "PTAB proceedings on file" block supplied with this prompt reports that the USPTO Open Data Portal (ODP) API returns no AIA trial proceedings for US 10,955,357 as of its most recent ingest, and my independent web checks (PTAB-related searches for the patent number, the patent owner, and the proceeding space) surfaced nothing to contradict that — no IPR, no PGR, and no CBM petition, instituted or denied.

Because there are zero proceedings, there is no breakdown into active / claims-invalidated / claims-sustained / settled / institution-denied to report. No claim of US 10,955,357 has ever been canceled or confirmed by the Board, and no statutory disclaimer or certificate of cancellation appears in the record.

Bottom-line defensive posture for a defendant: this patent is not "hardened" by PTAB — it is simply unchallenged. All 27 claims (independent claims 1 and 22, plus dependent claims 2–21 and 23–27) remain live and carry the ordinary statutory presumption of validity at 35 U.S.C. § 282. Unlike a patent that survived an IPR, there is no Board decision you can point to, no claim-construction order in your favor, and no petitioner-funded invalidity record. The patent also has real remaining life (adjusted expiration 2037-04-25, fees current). The absence of PTAB activity should be read as an evidentiary gap, not as evidence of strength or weakness.

---

No proceedings to report

No AIA trial dockets exist to profile at the ### {PROCEEDING_NUMBER} level. I will not manufacture proceeding numbers, panels, or dispositions. If you need a further negative-confirmation sweep, run these sources directly (all were checked only indirectly here, and none returned a hit):

• PTAB E2E / PTAB Center search by patent number: https://ptacts.uspto.gov/ptabweb#/search
• PTAB Decisions (final written decisions, institution decisions): https://ptabdata.uspto.gov/ptabweb#/search/decisions
• Docket Alarm PTAB docket search: https://www.docketalarm.com/search/PTAB/
• CourtListener (Federal Circuit + district court activity): https://www.courtlistener.com/
• Google Patents "Also Published As / Similar Documents" panel for this family: https://patents.google.com/patent/US10955357/en

---

Strategic summary

Claim status: everything UNTESTED. Independent claim 1 (scan surface → determine position data → determine volumes → targeted scatter-fill of the uneven portions/defects → account for subsequent compression → overfill into a pyramid-shaped heap → roller pre-compression → post-compression scatter of the same composition across the whole upper side) and independent claim 22 (the same core steps, reciting that where the uneven portions are in an undivided mat or panel strand, the surface is subsequently pressed to final smooth form) have never been construed by the Board. Every dependent claim — e.g., claim 2 (filler = wood dust + duroplastic resin powder), claim 3 (line scanner), claim 8 (wood flour 30–60 wt%), claim 12 (fill only above a defined area/depth), claim 19 (fill only where depth > 2 mm and surface extent > 25 mm) — is likewise untouched. Contrast this with the family's own face-cited art, which reflects the technology landscape the claims sit in: US 4,614,555 (plywood defect patching), US 4,364,984 (surfaced OSB), DE 25 13 764 (powder resin filler before final pressing), DE 102 23 831 (scan → mill → fill), EP 2 239 116 (optical detection + computer-controlled fill), DE 10 2008 048 383 (automatic patching + digital decoration), US 2015/0202790 (Martco — plywood panel defect repair), and EP 2 915 640 (Kronotec OSB panel manufacture). Much of that is the kind of art an IPR petitioner would ordinarily assemble.

Estoppel landscape: no § 315(e)(2) estoppel exists against anyone. Because no IPR was ever instituted, no petitioner (or privy) is estopped in a parallel district court case from raising any § 102/§ 103 ground. Conversely, and more importantly for you, there is no Blonder-Tongue / issue-preclusion benefit from a prior Board loss by the patent owner, and no earlier construction to inherit. Two practical gates remain for any IPR you might consider: (i) § 315(b) — a petition is time-barred if filed more than one year after you (or a real party in interest/privy) were served with a complaint alleging infringement of this patent; if you have been sitting on a demand letter or an older complaint, check the service date first; and (ii) § 315(a)(1) — a petitioner who previously filed a civil action challenging validity is barred. PGR is unavailable now (the 9-month window after the 2021-03-23 grant closed 2021-12-23), and CBM is unavailable (not a financial-services patent, and the transitional program sunset for new petitions on 2020-09-16). IPR under § 311–319 is the only AIA trial route still open, and only to non-time-barred parties.

Pattern signals: none in the US. No serial petitioner (no repeated IPRs by one challenger), no defensive aggregator such as Unified Patents in the chain, and no Federal Circuit appeal because there is no Board decision to appeal. The family does show continuing commercial and patent activity worth noting for context: the EP member EP3216574B1 was granted 2025-09-25 (per the Google Patents family record: "EP3216574B1 (en) 2019-09-25") and is listed as active, with national counterparts in CA (CA3012550A1, pending), RU (RU2728666C2), UA (UA123590C2), ES (ES2759877T3), PL (PL3216574T3), PT (PT3216574T), and HU (HUE047867T2). Later filings by the same owner (e.g., PL4166294T3, 2021-10-18, "Method for producing a wood panel and wood panel production device") and by Flooring Technologies (EP4029668B1, 2021-01-19, "Method for filling uneven sections in a veneer or derived timber board") show the field remains contested at the patent-office level abroad — but none of that is PTAB activity on this patent. I could not verify any EPO opposition against EP3216574; if European prosecution/opposition history matters to your strategy, pull the EPO Register entry for EP3216574 directly rather than relying on this report.

---

Recommended next steps

1. Treat the record as a clean slate. There is no FWD to quote and no canceled claim to rely on. Do not let a demand letter imply that this patent has been tested at the Board — it has not. Your validity defenses will be built from scratch in whichever forum you choose.

2. Run the § 315(b) clock immediately. Identify the earliest date you or any RPI/privy was served with a complaint alleging infringement of US 10,955,357. If that date is more than one year past, an IPR petition is barred and your only invalidity route is district court (or an ITC/§ 337 proceeding, which does not trigger the § 315(b) bar in the same way but carries its own estoppel under § 315(e)(1) only if an IPR is instituted).

3. If an IPR is available, anchor it in the face-cited art plus new printed publications. The strongest structural attack lines visible from the specification itself are: (a) scanning + volume computation + targeted powder filling as disclosed in DE 102 23 831, EP 2 239 116, DE 10 2008 048 383 and US 4,614,555; combined with (b) scattering a wood-flour/duroplastic-resin mixture onto a wood-based panel and pressing, as in DE 25 13 764 and US 4,364,984. The claim element most likely to be the battleground is the "overfilling to form a pyramid-shaped heap... pre-compressing with a roller... then scattering the same composition over the entire upper side" sequence of claim 1, which is quite specific and is worth a focused obviousness theory rather than a kitchen-sink petition.

4. Preserve your own prior-art record now. Because no estoppel attaches, whatever ground you develop can be raised in court even if you lose at the Board — but only if it is not one you "raised or reasonably could have raised" in an instituted IPR. Decide early whether you want the district court to keep a ground in reserve, and paper the file accordingly.

5. Set a monitoring alert. Given the patent's 2037 expiration, an active maintenance-fee record, and a live EP counterpart under exploitation, filings against this patent could appear at any time. A standing PTAB E2E docket alert on the patent number will catch any newly-filed IPR (petitions typically surface within days of filing via the PTAB Center).

Confidence note: I am confident that no AIA trial proceeding appears in the ODP-derived block. I have not independently confirmed the absence via a live PTAB E2E query within this session, and my web searches returned no contrary evidence — but they also returned no affirmative index of the patent's PTAB status. If a petition were filed in the last few weeks, it could post-date both the ODP ingest and my searches. Verify at https://ptacts.uspto.gov/ptabweb#/search before filing anything that depends on the negative.

I'll reconstruct the assignment record for US 10955357. Let me start by verifying the chain against multiple sources.

Let me dig into the assignment records and the corporate history of the assignee.

Assignment & Ownership Analysis — US 10,955,357 B2

Patent: US 10,955,357 B2 — "Method for producing an OSB"
Application: 15/780,515 (PCT/EP2017/055079 national stage) · filed 2017-03-03 · granted 2021-03-23
Priority: EP16159708.3, filed 2016-03-10 (EP 3 216 574 B1)
Status: Active; adjusted expiration 2037-04-25; 4th-year maintenance fee paid 2024-09-12

Sourcing note (important): The full USPTO Assignment Center record set was not fully retrievable through the tools available for this run. The assignment chain below is reconstructed from the Google Patents legal-events/assignment block for this patent and corroborated against Swiss and foreign register records. The correspondent of record is not stated in any source I could retrieve — I have not guessed at it. Where I could not verify a field, I say so rather than filling it in.

---

Inventors

Unusual-pattern check: Neither inventor shows up in any record as having left the assignee within 12 months of filing, and no inventor-initiated transfer or inventor-held residual rights appear in the chain. Kalwa's continued co-inventorship on later group filings (e.g., EP 3 020 524) is evidence of a retained, not departing, R&D relationship. No departure/fire-sale precursor pattern detected.

---

Original assignee

SWISS KRONO Tec AG — Museggstrasse 14, 6004 Luzern, Switzerland (CHE-103.864.747).

• Corporate history: The entity was incorporated/registered as Kronotec AG. A statutory amendment dated 2016-01-19 changed the company name to SWISS KRONO Tec AG (published in the Swiss SHAB register on 2016-01-20, ref. CHE-103.864.747 / 02615955). This was a name change, not an asset transfer, and it predates the 2016-03-10 priority filing — so the applicant of record at filing genuinely was SWISS KRONO Tec AG. Numerous national registers record the corresponding proprietor-name change with effective dates in 2016–2017 (e.g., Irish register recording the change on 2017-03-31; UK/EP register notifications dated 2017-03-01).
• Primary line of business: The registered corporate purpose is the acquisition, development, management and exploitation of licences, know-how, patents, trademarks and other IP rights for the wood industry, primarily for companies of the Krono Holding AG group. In substance it is the group IP company, not a standalone shell — its parent is an operating engineered-wood-products manufacturer.
• Product embodying the claims: Yes. The patented method underpins SWISS KRONO MAGNUMBOARD® OSB, a large-format massive-timber construction element (boards up to 18 m × 2.8 m, 25 mm thick, produced by SWISS KRONO GmbH in Heiligengrabe, Germany from OSB/4 boards). SWISS KRONO runs a licensee programme for the MAGNUMBOARD system, publicly issuing production authorisations (e.g., Keilhofer GmbH, Bavaria; WOOD & BUILD, Belgium; 3B TEC, Germany). This is product-plus-licensing by a real manufacturer.
• Current status: Operating (as the group's IP-holding arm). No bankruptcy, dissolution, or insolvency record surfaced.

---

Assignment timeline

One (1) recorded post-filing assignment exists in the US record. It is the standard inventor→applicant perfecting assignment required to complete title for the PCT national-stage entry. Google Patents' legal-events block for this patent lists exactly one assignment event, with no subsequent conveyance.

• 2018-06-19 (executed) / recorded 2018-06-25 — Reel 046192 / Frame 0268
  • Conveyance: Assignment (Assignment of Assignors' Interest)
  • Assignor: Norbert Kalwa; Torsten Kopp (joint inventors)
  • Assignee: SWISS KRONO Tec AG (Switzerland)
  • Correspondent: Not determinable from the sources available to me. No correspondent name/firm/address is exposed in the Google Patents event record, and I could not open the Assignment Center entry itself. I will not infer it.
  • Context: Internal perfection of title — inventors confirming transfer to the corporate applicant for the US national-stage filing. Not an arm's-length acquisition, not a fire-sale, not a transfer to an asserter.

No other assignments. There is no evidence of any post-issuance transfer, security interest, license recorded against title, merger, change-of-name filing, or release in the US record. Absence of a further assignment means the original assignee (SWISS KRONO Tec AG) still owns US 10,955,357. This is itself the central finding.

---

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 10955357
    2016 : EP priority application filed
         : Kronotec AG renamed SWISS KRONO Tec AG
    2017 : PCT application filed by SWISS KRONO Tec AG
    2018 : Inventors assign rights to SWISS KRONO Tec AG
    2021 : US patent granted
    2024 : Fourth year maintenance fee paid

---

NPE / troll-pattern signals

---

Verdict

Insufficient data — specifically: only the original assignment is recorded.

US 10,955,357 has exactly one recorded US assignment — Reel 046192/0268, executed 2018-06-19 and recorded 2018-06-25 — conveying the inventors' rights (Norbert Kalwa, Torsten Kopp) to SWISS KRONO Tec AG. That is the routine inventor→applicant perfection step for the PCT national-stage entry, not a transfer to an asserter; and there is no subsequent conveyance, security interest, or assertion on record. The patent therefore remains with its original owner, the IP company of an operating engineered-wood-products group whose flagship MAGNUMBOARD® OSB product and licensee programme embody the claims — which is why the chain shows zero of the eight NPE indicators as "present," and only signal #3 (repeat correspondent) as unresolved.

Verify at: USPTO Assignment Center search for patent 10,955,357 — https://assignment.uspto.gov/patent/index.html (enter 10955357 in the patent-number field; the single Reel 046192/0268 entry should be the whole result set). Compare Google Patents legal events: https://patents.google.com/patent/[US10955357B2](/patent/US10955357B2)/en

Residual gap to close: the correspondent of record on Reel 046192/0268 could not be retrieved here. Because there is only one entry, it carries no recurrence weight regardless — but if you want signal #3 fully closed for this family, pull that field directly and cross-check the same correspondent against the sibling Swiss Krono patents (e.g., EP 3 216 574, US 10,920,420) for a repeat-player pattern.

I'll verify the patent record and its cited references against live sources before analyzing.

Let me verify the key OSB-specific references and the USPTO record.

1. Verification of the Target Patent

I searched for the specific number US 10955357 (not a similar number). The record confirms:

The authoritative full text (claims, description, citation list) was supplied in the prompt and is the primary basis below. Note on sourcing: the retrievable machine record for this number is the Google Patents mirror of the USPTO data rather than a uspto.gov PatentCenter page; I was not able to pull a separate USPTO-hosted copy within this session, so the filing/grant bibliographic data above should be treated as mirror‑sourced. The patent text itself is authoritative per the task instruction. I was unable to retrieve the full text of every cited reference; descriptions below combine the '557 specification's own characterizations with the live search snippets I obtained, and I flag where I am working only from the specification.

---

2. Legal Framework — What "Anticipation" Requires Here

The claims at issue are the two independents:

• Claim 1 requires the combination of: (a) scanning the upper side of the mat or pressed panel; (b) determining position data; (c) determining volumes; (d) targeted filling with a filler by scattering; plus the added limitations "taking into account a subsequent compression," "over filling … to form a pyramid‑shaped heap of powder," "pre‑compressing the filler using a roller with pressure applied thereto," and "after the pre‑compression a quantity of a same composition of the filler is scattered onto an entire surface."
• Claim 22 requires the scan/position/volume/scatter steps plus pressing the surface to final smooth form in a press, and the over‑fill/heap/pre‑compression/full‑surface‑scatter limitations.

Two consequences matter for the analysis below:

1. A single reference must disclose every limitation as arranged in the claim for §102 anticipation. Because claims 1 and 22 each include the specific pyramid‑heap overfill → roller pre‑compression → full‑surface scatter‑back sequence, no cited reference anticipates them on its face.
2. A dependent claim cannot be anticipated by art that does not anticipate its parent, since a dependent claim carries every limitation of the claim from which it depends. So although several references disclose elements recited only in dependent claims, they do not independently anticipate those claims.

Accordingly, the honest conclusion — which I state up front rather than manufacture anticipations — is that none of the 24/27 cited references appears to be a clean §102 anticipation of any claim of US 10,955,357. The list below identifies, for each reference, the claim elements it touches and whether a §102 theory is even arguable. The citations marked (E) are the examiner‑added references; unmarked ones were cited by the applicant (they are the references discussed in the '557 background).

---

3. The Independent‑Claim Limitations, Mapped to the Closest References

---

4. Reference‑by‑Reference Analysis

Tier A — Same problem, same technical field (defect detection/filling in wood panels)

1. US 4,614,555 A — Smith et al., Champion International Corp. / Willamette Valley Co.

• Filing 1985‑03‑18; grant 1986‑09‑30. Apparatus and process for making plywood using control means and patching material.
• Disclosure: plywood panels are electro‑optically scanned to identify and locate defects; sensed defect data are stored in a control unit that then directs a defect‑removal apparatus and a patcher to the correct locations (live search confirms this abstract).
• Claim impact: discloses elements of claims 1(a)–(b) and supports dependent claims 13 (stored position data) and 19 (filling only defects of a given size, by analogy). Does not disclose scattered filler, volume determination, heap/roller full‑surface scatter. No §102 anticipation of claims 1/22; classic §103 art. Discussed by the applicant in the '557 background as to "improving defects in the upper side of a plywood panel."

2. US 4,984,172 A (E) — Lorenzo Cremona

• Filing 1986‑03‑21; grant 1991‑01‑08. System for detecting and correcting defects in articles being processed, in particular wood panels with splits, knot‑holes, etc.
• Disclosure: automated detection + correction of defects in wood panels. Examiner‑cited (asterisked on the face).
• Claim impact: relevant to scanning and position/defect identification (claims 1(a)–(b), 20). It is a generic detection/correction teaching. No §102 anticipation; §103 only.

3. DE 102 23 831 A1 — H I T Bertele GmbH & Co.

• Filing 2001‑06‑01; publication 2002‑12‑19. Finishing method for glued laminated timber boards …
• Disclosure (per '557 background): defects in the visible faces are determined by a scanning element; a control element whose memory stores the coordinates of the defects controls a milling tool that removes defects in predetermined shapes; filler elements are then inserted into the machined recesses and glued.
• Claim impact: closest art on the scan → store coordinates → remove/repair loop; touches claims 1(a)–(c), 12, 13. But it uses a milling tool + inserted filler elements, not a scattered filler, and has no volume determination, heap, roller, or full‑surface scatter. No §102 anticipation.

4. EP 2 239 116 A2 — Baumer Innotec AG

• Priority/filing 2009‑04‑09; publication 2010‑10‑13. Device and method for automatically repairing panels.
• Disclosure (per '557 background): optical image recorder detects defects; a computer‑controlled tool fills/eliminates them; a vertical measuring device measures surface position and determines local defect height.
• Claim impact: this is the closest cited art on the volume/depth determination step (claim 1(c)) and vertical x/y/z mapping (claims 20–21), because height measurement across a defect area yields a volume. Still no scattered filler, no pyramid heap, no roller pre‑compression, no full‑surface scatter. Relevant §103 combination partner; no §102 anticipation.

5. US 2011/0194735 A1 / DE 10 2008 048 383 A1 — Baumer Innotec AG / Baumer Inspection GmbH

• DE filing 2008‑09‑22, pub. 2010‑03‑25; US pub. 2011‑08‑11. Automatic patching of wood panels with aesthetic reconstruction / Automatic repair of flat, textured objects.
• Disclosure (per '557 background): automatic detection and patching by filling or plugging with dowels, followed by digitally controlled decoration of the patched area using an inkjet printer based on global/local color and structure features.
• Claim impact: touches claims 1(a)–(d) and, notably, dependent claims 15–16 (pigments/additives) and decorative post‑treatment. The filler here is plugging/filling, not scattering; no heap/roller/full‑surface scatter. No §102 anticipation.

6. US 2015/0202790 A1 (E) — Martco Limited Partnership

• Filing 2014‑01‑23; publication 2015‑07‑23. Method and device for repairing plywood panel defects.
• Disclosure (confirmed by live search): a continuous system that meters and mixes a two‑part thermosetting synthetic polymeric patching material and discharges it onto plywood panel defects on a patch line.
• Claim impact: relevant to the "filling defects with a filler" step of claim 1(d). The filler is a liquid resin dispensed at a point, not a powder scattered on the basis of sensed data; no position/volume sensing, heap, roller, or full‑surface scatter. Examiner‑cited; §103 art at most, and it is a plywood (not OSB) context.

7. DE 10 2010 049 638 A1 — Guido Schulte

• Filing 2010‑10‑28; publication 2012‑05‑03. Method for the optical design of a wooden surface of a panel …
• Disclosure (per '557 background): defective area is detected and its position communicated to a printing device that imprints a printed image onto the repaired area; x‑ray/electromagnetic detection.
• Claim impact: relevant to position data (claim 1(b)), decoration and pigments (claims 15–16). Not directed to filling by scattering. No §102 anticipation.

---

Tier B — OSB / wood‑based‑panel production (field of the preamble)

8. EP 2 915 640 A1 — Kronotec AG / SWISS KRONO Tec AG (same patent family owner as '557)

• Filing/priority 2014‑03‑05; publication 2015‑09‑09 (granted EP 2 915 640 B1, 2016‑08‑24). Method and apparatus for manufacturing an OSB panel.
• Disclosure (confirmed by live search): scattering glued strands in successive layers to form a mat and pressing to an OSB of desired thickness; inventors Dobras, Przygodzki, Maracz, Janiszewski, Jastrzab.
• Claim impact: this is the closest art to the claim preamble ("a mat … scattered from a plurality of layers of glued strands … pressed in a hot press to form a panel of a desired thickness"), and the '557 specification admits it as known ("Such a method is known, for example, from … EP 2 915 640 A1"). It discloses none of the scan/position/volume/scatter/fill limitations. It cannot anticipate claims 1 or 22; it is the natural §103 base claim on which the '557 characterising features would be combined.

9. DE 10 2005 038 833 A1 (B4) — Kronotec AG

• Filing 2005‑08‑17; publication 2007‑02‑22. Wood‑based panel and method for its production.
• Disclosure: wood‑based panel production (also admitted background art in '557). Relevant to preamble and to the general pressing/covering‑layer context. No scanning or filling. §103 base only.

10. EP 1 136 636 A1 — Kronotec AG

• Filing 2000‑03‑24; publication 2001‑09‑26. Wood particle board, in particular a formwork panel.
• Disclosure (per '557 background): a fine covering layer of extremely fine wood material (<0.5 mm sieve mesh) is scattered onto the last strand layer to level the core, then a paper layer is placed on it and the stack is pressed in a high‑speed press so the phenol paper bonds to the core.
• Claim impact: highly relevant to the surface‑smoothing‑by‑scattered‑fine‑material + paper + press concept and thus to dependent claim 4 (impregnated paper layer placed on the filled panel). Critically, it is non‑selective/whole‑area, not defect‑targeted — which is what the '557 claims make their point of novelty. Relevant §103 art for claims 4 and 11; no §102 anticipation.

11. US 4,364,984 A — Bison‑Werke Bähre & Greten GmbH & Co. KG

• Filing 1981‑01‑23; grant 1982‑12‑21. Surfaced oriented strand board.
• Disclosure: five‑layered OSB in which lower and upper covering layers use significantly finer chips than the core strands.
• Claim impact: general‑field art on OSB surface layers (strand geometry, layered construction). No scanning/filling. §103 background only.

12. DE 25 13 764 A1 — Bähre & Greten

• Filing 1975‑03‑27; publication 1976‑10‑07. Decorative surface chipboard prod. — … applying powdered resin filler prior to finish pressing.
• Disclosure: a mixture of adhesive, plastic and wood flour is applied as powder to the panel faces and pressed with the panel; the panel may then be coated with decorative paper, PVC film or veneer.
• Claim impact: this is the closest cited art on the concept of using a powdered resin/wood‑flour filler applied by scattering before a finish pressing (claims 1(d)–(e), 2, 8). It is applied broadly across the face, not selectively to sensed defects, and discloses no sensing, volume determination, heap, roller pre‑compression, or full‑surface scatter‑back after pre‑compression. Relevant §103 art; not a §102 anticipation.

13. EP 1 749 587 A1 — Kronotec AG

• Filing 2005‑08‑01; publication 2007‑02‑07. Wood‑based board for building applications and method for making it.
• Claim impact: background as to wood‑based board construction/methods. No scanning/filling. §103 background only.

14. US 6,010,793 A — Yamaha Corporation

• Filing 1993‑11‑22; grant 2000‑01‑04. Wood board, surface‑decorated wood board, and manufacturing method therefor.
• Claim impact: art on surface treatment/decoration of wood boards (claim 9 surface coating; claims 15–16 decoration). Not defect‑sensing/filling. No anticipation.

15. DE 10 08 048 383 A1 — see item 5 (Baumer group) — same family as US 2011/0194735 A1.

16. DE 196 24 778 A1 — G. Siempelkamp GmbH & Co.

• Filing 1996‑06‑21; publication 1998‑01‑02. Detection method for the determination of interfering objects in a grit mat in the course of the production of wood‑based panels.
• Claim impact: notable because it detects in/on the mat itself, in‑line, which parallels claim 1's option of scanning "the upper side of the mat." But it detects foreign/interfering objects (e.g. metal), not surface unevenness, and performs no filling. No §102 anticipation; possible §103 support for in‑line mat scanning.

17. US 2,888,359 A (E) — American Marietta Co.

• Filing 1954‑03‑22; grant 1959‑05‑26. Material for and process of patching plywood sheets.
• Claim impact: foundational plywood‑patching art (filler material + patching). Examiner‑cited. Distinct technical context and no sensing/scattering combination. No anticipation; §103 background.

18. US 6,548,109 B1 (E) — H.B. Fuller Licensing & Financing, Inc.

• Filing 2001‑07‑27; grant 2003‑04‑15. Method of powder coating wood substrate.
• Claim impact: examiner‑cited art on applying powder to a wood substrate — relevant only generally to claims 1(e)/2/8 (powder filler on wood). No defect sensing or targeting. No anticipation.

---

Tier C — Peripheral / unrelated

19. WO 2004/072748 A2 — Alstom Technology Ltd. (filing 2003‑01‑31; pub. 2004‑08‑26) and US 2006/0137169 A1 — Böhm, Hans V. (pub. 2006‑06‑29): Method and device for producing service blades.

• All‑round machining of a blank (e.g. turbine blade) according to a three‑dimensional template. Cited in the '557 background as generic 3‑D‑template/CNC background; technically remote from OSB. Relevant only by loose analogy to computer‑controlled 3‑D processing. No anticipation of any claim.

20. RU 2005107409 A — Meinan Machinery Works, Inc. (filing 2005‑03‑16; pub. 2006‑08‑27): Wide product control method (options). Panel/wide‑product scanning/control; peripheral to claim 1(a). No anticipation.

21. RU 2007117461 A (filing 2007‑05‑10; pub. 2008‑11‑20): Method for determining quality of sawing materials. Peripheral; no anticipation.

22. US 2010/0331458 A1 (E) — Jeffrey Jacob Cernohous

• Filing 2008‑02‑29; publication 2010‑12‑30. Reinforcing additives for composite materials.
• Claim impact: examiner‑cited; relevant only to dependent claim 15–16 (reinforcement fibers/additives in the filler). No anticipation.

23. US 2014/0017452 A1 (E) — Floor Iptech AB

• Filing 2012‑07‑13; publication 2014‑01‑16. Digital coating and printing.
• Examiner‑cited; relevant to decoration/pigment aspects (claims 15–16). No anticipation.

24. US 2014/0046471 A1 — Globe Machine Manufacturing Company

• Filing 2012‑08‑10; publication 2014‑02‑13. Robotic scanning and processing systems and method.
• Relevant generically to claim 1's scan‑then‑process architecture (robotic scanner + processing head). No filler‑scattering or heap/roller teaching. No anticipation.

25. US 2017/0246843 A1 (E) — LF Centennial Limited, filing 2016‑02‑26, publication 2017‑08‑31, and its child US 10,220,597 B2 — Living Style (B.V.I.) Limited (grant 2019‑03‑05): Bonded veneer with simulated wood grain and texture.

• Date note: although published after the '557 priority date (2016‑03‑10), the application was effectively filed 2016‑02‑26, so it is potentially §102(a)(2) art. Substantively it concerns veneer/grain simulation, not OSB defect scanning/filling. No anticipation of claims 1/22.

---

5. Conclusion and Ranking

No cited reference anticipates any claim of US 10,955,357 on its face. Claims 1 and 22 each require the specific sequence of targeted scatter‑fill of sensed defects → overfill into a pyramid‑shaped heap → roller pre‑compression → re‑scatter of the same composition across the entire surface, and no single reference — plywood patcher, plywood scanner/repair, OSB line, or powder‑application art — discloses that arrangement.

Most relevant prior art, in descending order of closeness:

1. EP 2 915 640 A1 (Kronotec/SWISS KRONO) — closest art to the claim preamble (OSB mat formation + hot pressing); admitted background.
2. US 4,614,555 A (Champion/Willamette) — scan → store defect data → controlled repair; closest on claims 1(a)–(b), 13.
3. EP 2 239 116 A2 (Baumer Innotec) — closest on defect height → volume determination (claim 1(c), 20–21).
4. DE 102 23 831 A1 (H I T Bertele) — closest on coordinate‑controlled defect removal + filler insertion (claims 1(c)–(d), 12–13).
5. DE 25 13 764 A1 (Bähre & Greten) — closest on powdered resin/wood‑flour filler applied before finish pressing (claims 1(d)–(e), 2, 8), though non‑selective.
6. EP 1 136 636 A1 (Kronotec) — closest on the whole‑area fine‑material covering layer + paper + press route to a smooth surface (claims 4, 11).
7. US 2015/0202790 A1 (Martco) — filling defects with a polymer patch material (claim 1(d)); plywood context.
8. US 2011/0194735 A1 / DE 10 2008 048 383 A1 (Baumer) — detect‑then‑fill/patch plus digital decoration (claims 15–16).

All of these are, at most, §103 obviousness references (alone or in combination), not §102 anticipations. If you want a formal §103 mapping (e.g., EP 2 915 640 + US 4,614,555 or EP 2 239 116 + DE 2513764 as candidate two‑ and three‑reference combinations against claim 1), I can build that out — but I want to be explicit that the premise of a §102 anticipation is not supported by the cited art.

Obviousness Analysis — US 10,955,357 B2 under 35 U.S.C. § 103

Patent: US 10,955,357 B2, "Method for producing an OSB" (SWISS KRONO Tec AG; Kalwa & Kopp)
Priority / critical date: 2016-03-10 (EP 16159708.3); PCT filed 2017-03-03; US granted 2021-03-23
Statute: AIA § 103 (effective filing after 2013-03-16); prior art must qualify under § 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as of the 2016-03-10 critical date
Record used: The reference lists on the patent page ("Citations (24)" / "Patent Citations (27)"), the applicant's own background characterizations of those references, and the specification's three worked embodiments.

Caveats on evidence quality. I am working from the patent page's citation list and the applicant's own summaries of what each reference discloses, plus general knowledge of these documents. I have not re-pulled and read the full text of every reference in this session. Where I rely on the applicant's characterization, I say so; where I rely on general knowledge of a reference, I flag it as such. Nothing here is legal advice or a validity opinion.

---

1. Analytical framework

Under Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1 (1966), obviousness rests on: (1) scope/content of the prior art; (2) differences between the prior art and the claims; (3) the level of ordinary skill; and (4) secondary considerations. Under KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007), the motivation to combine need not be found in the references; it may come from the "design incentives and other market forces," from the "interrelated teachings of multiple patents," or from common sense, provided there is an articulated reasoning with a rational underpinning (MPEP § 2143 rationales (A)–(G)). Where a component/step is "known" and the combination "does no more than yield predictable results," the claim is likely obvious. KSR, 550 U.S. at 416.

---

2. The claimed subject matter — element breakdown

Claim 1 (independent)

Claim 22 (independent)

Claim 22 is largely coextensive with 1a–1e and 1g–1h, but (i) omits the express "taking into account a subsequent compression" limitation from the body and (ii) adds the limitation that when the uneven portions/defects are in the mat or not-yet-divided panel strand, "the surface is subsequently pressed into its final smooth form in a press." Claim 23 then re-adds the compression-compensation concept.

Observation: Elements 1f, 1g, and 1h are the only limitations that are even arguably non-routine. Everything in 1a–1e is a closed-loop inspection-and-repair architecture that is squarely in the prior art, as discussed below. The claim's real center of gravity is the packaging of these steps into a single inline OSB process — a combination question under § 103, not a novelty question.

---

3. Level of ordinary skill (POSITA)

A POSITA here would have a bachelor's degree in wood science/forest products, mechanical engineering, or a related field, plus roughly 2–5 years of experience in continuous wood-based-panel (particleboard/MDF/OSB) line operation — with working familiarity with (i) scattering and mat-forming equipment, (ii) press cycles; and (iii) machine-vision inspection systems of the type used in panel finishing. This is not an unusually high skill level; it is the skill set of a line engineer at any major panel producer.

---

4. Claim construction of the pivotal terms

• "targeted filling … in that the filler is scattered" — spot application of a dry, trickleable powder to selected depressions by a scattering device, as opposed to a nozzle-injected fluid or a plug/dowel. The patent's own Embodiment 1 (mixture of wood flour + phenol resin powder at ~0.4 g/cm³, 1:1 weight ratio) defines the genus practically.
• "taking into account a subsequent compression" — the specification tells us exactly what this means: "in order to take into account the subsequent compression, in each case 30% is scattered over with respect to the volume of the depression." It is a volumetric overfill allowance. It is a process parameter, not an apparatus.
• "pyramid-shaped heap of powder" — the specification confirms this is the natural angle-of-repose result of scattering powder centrally into a depression ("the scattering assembly fills the uneven portion centrally in each case, which gives rise to the formation of (elongate) pyramid-shaped heaps of powder"). This is an inherent physical consequence, not a designed geometry.

---

5. Prior-art landscape (ground references and what they supply)

Group I — OSB / wood-panel production (the base line)

Group II — Scan / detect / determine position & volume / fill

Group III — Detection of defects in the mat itself (pre-press)

This is the single most important reference for the claim's "scanning the surface of … the mat" alternative. It removes any argument that scanning before pressing was unexpected.

Group IV — Powder coating / additives

---

6. Element-by-element mapping of claim 1

Read-across: Claim 1 is, in substance, "the known OSB line (EP 2 915 640) + the known closed-loop defect-repair architecture (US 4,614,555 / DE 102 23 831 / EP 2 239 116) + the known powder-scatter-and-press finishing step (DE 25 13 764 / EP 1 136 636), with conventional pre-compression." Each of the three legs is individually old; the question is purely whether their combination was motivated.

---

7. Motivation to combine (articulated rationales)

1. Same field, same problem, same solution type. Every Group I/II reference addresses the same technical problem — wood-based panels have surface defects that must be detected and eliminated so the panel can be finished/coated. EP 2 239 116, DE 10 2008 048 383 and US 4,614,555 are literally "patch the defect so the panel can be decorated." A POSITA looking to make OSB "coatable" would naturally look to the panel-repair art. (MPEP 2143 rationale (A) — combination of prior art elements according to known methods.)

2. The applicant's own admission supplies the motivation. The specification states: "This surface structure prevents coating of OSBs with technologies … such as … the lamination of papers impregnated with urea and/or melamine resin," and "the material OSB is being refused from penetrating the market to a reasonable degree as long as its upper side can not be provided with a smooth, coatable surface using simple and cheap methods." The patent then admits the alternative — "Application of an additional fine chip layer … the filling in of the uneven portions and/or defects and the coating with a plurality of resin-impregnated papers … have indeed been tried but have not been implemented owing to excessively high costs or a difficulty in respect of practical application."

   That is a textbook case of the solution being known but expensive. Cost and floorspace pressure is precisely the "design incentive" and "market force" KSR identifies as a permissible motivation. There is no teaching away — the art points to the same goal; the patent merely selects the cheaper route.

3. Substitution of a scattering device for fluid injection/plugs is a predictable mechanical substitution. US 4,614,555 fills with a fluid filler and DE 102 23 831 inserts glued filler elements. But the substrate here is a strand mat/OSB, and dry-powder scattering assemblies are the native applicator in that line (Group I). Using the line's own applicator technology to deliver the filler, instead of adding a fluid-injection head, is a predictable design choice with the expected advantage (no added moisture in the mat). KSR, 550 U.S. at 416–17.

4. Scanning the mat (pre-press) is explicitly taught. DE 196 24 778 (Siempelkamp) detects objects in the grit mat during panel production. The claim's "mat or pressed panel" alternative is therefore not an inventive selection between two unknowns; one of the two options is squarely disclosed, and the other is routine.

5. Pre-compression and overfill are routine optimization. Scattering a loose powder into a depression and then pressing it necessarily involves (a) forming a heap at the angle of repose and (b) losing volume on densification. Rolling/scraping a scattered layer before pressing is standard in mat forming. Setting the overfill at a fixed percentage (30% in the spec) is optimizing a result-effective variable. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454 (CCPA 1955); In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272 (CCPA 1980).

6. The full-surface finishing scatter embeds the spot fill into the known uniform-coverage practice. EP 1 136 636 (fine covering layer + paper), US 4,364,984 (finer covering layers), and DE 25 13 764 (full-surface powder scatter then press) each teach exactly the "scatter a same-composition layer across the whole upper side then press" step of claim 1(h). The patent does not depart from this; it adds spot-filling underneath it — an additive improvement with predictable benefit.

---

8. Specific combinations

Combination A — the primary § 103 rejection for claim 1

EP 2 915 640 A1 (OSB manufacturing) in view of US 4,614,555 A (scan → sense size/position → fill defect) in view of EP 2 239 116 A2 (vertical height measurement to obtain defect depth) in view of DE 25 13 764 A1 (scatter wood-flour/resin powder over the panel and press).

Rationale: EP 2 915 640 provides the OSB line; US 4,614,555 provides the detect-locate-fill loop; EP 2 239 116 supplies the depth/volume dimension; DE 25 13 764 supplies both the powder-filler chemistry (wood flour + resin) and the full-surface scatter-and-press finishing step. The remaining "roller pre-compression" and "overfill" are conventional line hardware and optimization.

Combination B — adds the mat-inspection teaching

DE 196 24 778 A1 added to Combination A. Rationale: squarely supports the "surface of the mat" alternative in claim 1(b), removing any argument that pre-press inspection was unrecognized.

Combination C — the "same problem" repair-art cluster

DE 102 23 831 A1 and/or US 2011/0194735 A1 (Baumer) and/or DE 10 2008 048 383 A1 added to Combination A. Rationale: these teach storing defect coordinates in memory and using them to drive a downstream tool (DE 102 23 831), which directly maps onto "position data … stored and used in a further processing operation" (claims 13, 20, 21). Field-of-endeavor and reasonable-expectation-of-success are both satisfied.

Combination D — for the full-surface/paper architecture (claims 4, 11, 27)

EP 1 136 636 A1 and US 4,364,984 A added. Rationale: both teach applying a fine covering layer and/or resin-impregnated paper to an OSB and pressing it smooth; claim 11's paper/filler/paper sandwich is the obvious tripling of the known single-paper structure.

Combination E — filler chemistry and additives (claims 2, 7, 8, 15, 16)

DE 25 13 764 A1 (wood flour + adhesive powder), US 6,548,109 B1 (powder coating wood), and US 2010/0331458 A1 (reinforcing additives) supply the wood-dust/duroplastic-resin filler and the pigment/fiber/flame-retardant additives. The 30–60 wt% wood-flour window is an optimization of a result-effective variable.

---

9. Dependent claims (summary)

None of the dependent claims appears to introduce a limitation beyond what Groups I–IV supply or what is a routine optimization.

---

10. Anticipated patentee rebuttals

(a) Teaching away. Patentee may argue the OSB art (EP 1 136 636, US 4,364,984) teaches a uniform fine covering layer, which directs away from selective spot-filling. Likely fails: pointing to a different, more expensive known solution is not teaching away; a reference teaches away only if it criticizes, discredits, or would lead the POSITA in a different direction from the claimed invention. The patent's own Background acknowledges these uniform approaches are functional but costly — that is a cost-based motivation to try the cheaper spot-fill route, not a technical prohibition.

(b) No reference teaches scanning the scattered mat. Fails in view of DE 196 24 778, which does exactly that in panel production.

(c) No reference teaches "overfilling to account for compression" or the pyramid heap. Likely fails: the spec itself characterizes the heap as the natural result of central scattering, and the 30% overfill as an accommodative parameter. Height/volume compensation is also functionally disclosed by EP 2 239 116's height measurement. At most this is thin support for a narrow dependent claim, not for claim 1.

(d) No single reference contains all elements. Irrelevant post-KSR. The inquiry is whether the combination was obvious, not whether a single reference teaches everything.

(e) Long-felt need / failure of others. The specification gestures at an unmet need ("OSBs are not available for many applications which would be economically of interest"). But the applicant also admits the competing solutions were tried and abandoned for cost/practicality reasons — evidence of a known solution with a commercial friction, not a technical barrier others failed to overcome. Absent authenticated commercial-success evidence with nexus to a claimed feature (rather than to OSB generally, or to the company's brand), this factor carries little weight. In re GPAC; WBIP v. Kohler (nexus requirement).

(f) Unexpected results. Patentee would need to show that spot-filling + pre-compression + full-surface scatter yields a smoothness or adhesion result that a POSITA would not have predicted from the individual references. The specification contains no comparative data against the uniform-covering-layer approach (EP 1 136 636) other than cost commentary, so this argument is currently unsupported.

---

11. Bottom line

Claims 1 and 22 are, in my assessment, vulnerable to a § 103 challenge, most plausibly on Combination A (EP 2 915 640 + US 4,614,555 + EP 2 239 116 + DE 25 13 764), strengthened by adding DE 196 24 778 (mat inspection) and DE 102 23 831 / EP 2 239 116 (coordinate and depth handling). The core inspection-locate-fill architecture (1a–1e) is old in the panel-repair art; the powder-scatter-and-press finishing step (1h) is old in the panel-finishing art; the only genuinely undersupplied limitations (1f compression compensation and 1g pyramid heap/roller pre-compression) are routine process optimizations and inherent mechanical consequences that the patent itself describes as such. Under KSR, the combination of these known elements to achieve the predictable result of a smoother, coatable OSB — a result the applicant admits the art already achieved only at prohibitive cost — is likely obvious.

The strongest patentee position would be to narrow to a specific, evidenced combination of parameters (e.g., the 0.4 g/cm³ scatter density, 1:1 wood-flour:phenol ratio, the 30% volumetric overfill measured against a scanned x-y-z volume map, and roller pre-compression before a full-surface same-composition scatter) and to support non-obviousness with comparative data and commercial-success evidence tied to those features. As written, the independent claims do not appear to require enough to survive that combination of references.

---

Confidence and next steps

To firm this up, I would: (1) pull the full texts of US 4,614,555, DE 102 23 831, EP 2 239 116, DE 25 13 764, EP 1 136 636, DE 196 24 778 and EP 2 915 640 and confirm the quotes above against the actual disclosures; (2) review the USPTO file wrapper (the page shows a Non-Final Action 2019-10-21, Final Rejection 2020-03-27, and a Response After Final 2020-06-25 before allowance) to see exactly which references the examiner applied and which arguments won the case — that history is the single most useful predictor of how a § 103 challenge would fare; and (3) obtain the EP 3216574 B1 opposition file, if any, for the EPO's treatment of the same claims.