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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant’s submission filed on April 6, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The amendments filed on April 6, 2026 have been entered. Claims 1, 4-7, 10, 12, 14-15, 17-19, 22, 26, 33-35, and 37-38 are pending in the application.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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, 4-7, 10, 12, 14-15, 22, 32-35, and 37-38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hand et al (WO 2019/185760 A1) in view of Renn et al (Effects of pH, Temperature, and Reactant Molar Ratio on l-Leucine and d-Glucose Maillard Browning Reaction in an Aqueous System, October 15, 1997, Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry, Vol 45, Issue 10, p.3782-3787), as evidenced by White (Corn Syrups: Clearing up the Confusion, December 2009, Food Product Design, Vol. 19 No. 12).
Regarding Claims 1, 4-6, 10, 12, and 14: Hand teaches a composition comprising wood fibers and a binder (para. 0005), wherein the binder comprises a branched polyamine containing three primary amine groups (para. 0018, triprimary triamine) and a carbohydrate such as a high fructose corn syrup having a dextrose equivalent of at least 90 (para. 0016), with a working example containing HFCS 42 (para. 0055), which White teaches has a dextrose equivalent of 92 (p.2, last paragraph).
Hand is silent to the alkalizing agent.
Renn teaches a method of alkalizing a Maillard reactant system by adding sodium hydroxide as an alkalizing agent to adjust the pH into a range from 7-10 (p.3782, col. 2, Preparation of reaction Mixture), with a pH of 9 and 10 displaying higher reaction rates (p.3786-3787, Conclusions; p.3783, Fig. 1, Fig. 2). Renn and Hand are analogous art because they are directed toward the same field of endeavor, namely Maillard reactions.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add an alkalizing agent, such as sodium hydroxide, to the composition of Hand and adjust the initial pH of the composition to 9-10 in order to increase the rate and degree of reaction between the amine reactant and the carbohydrate reactant.
Regarding Claim 7: Renn does not teach the weight percentage of the sodium hydroxide. However, the addition of varying amounts of NaOH is known to change pH to different levels (p.3782, Preparation of Reaction Mixtures). Arriving at the claimed amount of NaOH would be the result of routine experimentation and optimization to achieve the predictable result of adjusting the pH to alkaline conditions, rendering the claim obvious. See MPEP 2144.05(II).
Regarding Claim 15: Hand teaches 4-(aminomethyl)-1,8-octanediamine as an example of the triprimary triamine (para. 0018), which shares a close structural similarity to the claimed 4-(aminoethyl)-1,8-octanediamine. Triprimary triamines containing 10 carbon atoms are also envisioned by Hand (para. 0018, triaminodecanes), which is a genus encompassing the claimed compound. Between these two teachings, the claimed compound would be easily envisioned.
Regarding Claim 22: Hand teaches 60-95wt% of the carbohydrate and 5-40wt% of the polyamine (para. 0007).
Regarding Claims 32-33: Hand teaches engineered wood products such as particle boards, oriented strand boards, and fiber boards (para. 0005).
Regarding Claim 34: Hand teaches 7-15wt% of the binder composition based on the dry weight of the binder and the fibrous material (para. 0034).
Regarding Claim 35: Not disclosed is the density and dry strength. However, Hand teaches all of the claimed ingredients in the claimed amounts made by a substantially similar process. The original specification does not identify a feature that results in the claimed effect or physical property outside of the presence of the claimed components in the claimed amount. Therefore, the claimed effects and physical properties would naturally arise and be achieved by a composition with all the claimed ingredients. "Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. See MPEP § 2112.01. If it is the applicant’s position that this would not be the case: (1) evidence would need to be provided to support the applicant’s position; and (2) it would be the Office’s position that the application contains inadequate disclosure that there is no teaching as to how to obtain the claimed properties with only the claimed ingredients.
Regarding Claims 37-38: Hand teaches examples having a wet swell percentage of 23-25% (para. 0053).
Claim 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hand et al (WO 2019/185760 A1) in view of Renn et al (Effects of pH, Temperature, and Reactant Molar Ratio on l-Leucine and d-Glucose Maillard Browning Reaction in an Aqueous System, October 15, 1997, Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry, Vol 45, Issue 10, p.3782-3787) as evidenced by White (Corn Syrups: Clearing up the Confusion, December 2009, Food Product Design, Vol. 19 No. 12), as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Hampson et al (US 2019/0119446 A1).
Hand and Renn teach the limitations of claim 1, as set forth above. However, Hand is silent to the initial viscosity of the binder.
Hampson teaches a carbohydrate-amine binder (abstract) having an initial viscosity of 280-350 cP for the purpose of handleability (para. 0025).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adjust the initial viscosity of the binder composition taught by Hand to a range of 280-350 cP in order to achieve an easily handleable composition.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed April 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.
Additional Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Appley (US 2018/0265633 A1) teaches a composition comprising cellulose fibers and a binder formed from high fructose corn syrup and polyethyleneimine.
Jobber (US 2014/0357787 A1) teaches a binder composition containing a high-DE carbohydrate reactant.
Hjelmgaard (US 2016/0177068 A1) teaches a polyamine/carbohydrate binder.
Pacorel (US 2017/0130002 A1) teaches a binder comprising tris(2-aminoethyl)amine.
Hampson (US 2021/0102104 A1) teaches a binder comprising a reducing sugar and a polyprimary polyamine.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CAITLIN N ILLING whose telephone number is (571)270-1940. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8AM-4PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Mark Eashoo can be reached at (571)272-1197. 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.
/C.N.I./Examiner, Art Unit 1767
/MARK EASHOO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1767
Prosecution Insights