DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114 was filed in this application after a decision by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, but before the filing of a Notice of Appeal to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit or the commencement of a civil action. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114 and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the appeal has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114 and prosecution in this application has been reopened pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant’s submission filed on February 23, 2026 has been entered.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Election/Restrictions
Claims 12, 14-20 and 22 stand withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable
generic or linking claim. Election was deemed to have made without traverse for failing
to distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement
as discussed in the last office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 1, 3-8, 10, 21 and 23-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being
unpatentable over MAEDA et al (WO-2015001702) in view of HAND et al (WO-
2014/027115).
Claim 1: Maeda teaches a multilayered particle board comprising a core layer
and a surface layer, wherein the core layer comprises petroleum-derived adhesive as a
binder and the surface layer comprises plant-derived adhesive as a binder (Maeda,
translation copy, page 2, from 1th to last paragraph). The petroleum-based adhesives
include urea melamine-based adhesive, phenol-based adhesive, urethane-based
adhesive, wherein the urea melamine adhesives include a urea resin adhesive, a
melamine resin adhesive; the urethane adhesives include MDI (diphenyImethane
diisocyanate) adhesives, TDI (tolylene diisocyanate) adhesives, MDI prepolymer
adhesives, TDI prepolymer adhesives; and the plant-derived adhesives include acid and
sugar, wherein the sugar include sucrose, xylose, and dextrin (Maeda, translation copy,
page 2, all paragraphs in the lower half of page 2). While the plant-based adhesives of
Maeda do not include a nitrogen-containing component and it is not identified whether
the sugar is reducing, in the same field of endeavor, Hand teaches an improved
carbohydrate-based binder comprising at least one reducing sugar and a nitrogen-
containing component (Hand, page 6, lines 15-25)). The POSITA would have been
motivated to replace the plant-based adhesives of Maeda with the plant-based binder
taught by Hand because Hand states that the binder exhibits "excellent swelling
properties" and is relatively inexpensive and (Hand, page 1, first paragraph and page 2,
lines 10-15).
Claims 3-8: The reducing sugar and nitrogen source as claimed and their
proportions are taught by Hand at page 6, line 15 to page 7, line 20, and page 9, line 14
to page 13, line 13. The mole ratios of the carbonyl group to the amine component are
discussed by Hand at page 15, lines 3-10 which are within or overlapping the claimed
ranges.
Claim 10: Non-carbohydrate polyhydroxy component is also taught by 'Hand at
page 9, lines 1-12. With regards to the surface covering sheet or laminate, Maeda
teaches a covering layer at page 3 of the translation copy, 13th paragraph.
Claim 21: See claim 1 above.
Claim 23: Maeda teaches fine chips (1-5 mm) for surface layer and coarser chips (5-20mm) for the core layer (translation copy, page 2).
Claim 24: Because there are smaller particle son the surface layer and larger in the core, the density of the surface layer is greater.
Response to Arguments
The Affidavit under 37 CFR 1.132 does not overcome the rejection because it fails to show replacing the binder of Maeda with the carbohydrate-based binder of Hand would not result in a better product as reasoned in the rejection. The comparisons in the Affidavit are between the wood product from the teaching of Maeda alone and the wood product of the claimed invention, while the rejection is based on a combined teachings of Maeda and Hand. Therefore, the results shown in the affidavit are not germane to the issue raised in the rejection and thus the affidavit fails to overcome the rejection.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HOA (Holly) LE whose telephone number is (571)272-1511. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday, 10:00 am to 7:00 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, Alicia Chevalier can be reached at 571-272-1490. 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.
HOA (Holly) LE
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1788
/HOA (Holly) LE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1788