DETAILED ACTION
The communication dated 04/08/2024 has been entered and fully considered. Claims 1, 16, 17, 19, 24, 26, and 27 have been amended. Claims 12, 18, and 25 are cancelled. Claims 1-11, 13-17, 19-24 and 26-28 are pending.
Response to Amendment and Arguments
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Applicant argues that art does not disclose an oil as a sizing agent.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., oil as sizing agent) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Applicant argues that prior art does not teach the limitation of “wherein the hemp composite is in the form of a masonry brick or a concrete masonry unit” of the amended claims.
In response, the examiner acknowledges the amended claims present no new matter in the amendments.
Regarding the masonry concrete limitation, the examiner agrees that ANDERSEN does not teach the product used as masonry bricks or a concrete masonry units. ANDERSEN teaches the invention may be used for packaging product [abstract]. FUKUOKA (US 20180282936 A1) teaches a similar composite made from hemp pulp fibers [0063] and sizing agents [0129] that are processed in an aqueous suspension [0064]. FUKUOKA also teaches the pulp is processed into composites including bricks and concrete [0081]. FUKUOKA teaches that the invention is improves consistent resistance coverage due to the even covering of fiber by the particulate additives and the additive method makes the invention easier to handle when dried [0014]. This teaches the limitation of “in the form of a masonry brick or a concrete masonry unit”. It would be obvious to one skilled in the arts at the time of invention to modify the paperboard structure taught by ANDERSEN to form the concrete brick of FUKUOKA. One would be motivated to modify the paperboard production based on the common use of sizing additive with hemp to form a rigid package structure (paper board by ANDERSEN and concrete brick by FUKUOKA) and the added benefit of consistent coverage/resistance.
Applicant argues that no other art combination corrects the deficiency of previous rejection in light of amended masonry bricks and concrete masonry unit limitations.
In response, the examiner notes that FUKUOKA teaches a similar composite made from hemp pulp fibers [0063] and sizing agents [0129] that are processed in an aqueous suspension [0064]. FUKUOKA also teaches the pulp is processed into composites including bricks and concrete [0081]. FUKUOKA teaches that the invention is improves consistent resistance coverage due to the even covering of fiber by the particulate additives and the additive method makes the invention easier to handle when dried [0014]. This teaches the limitation of “in the form of a masonry brick or a concrete masonry unit”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
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.
Claims 1-10, 13-17, 19, 20, 22-24 and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ANDERSEN (US 20190264385 A1) in view of LACKINGER (US 8512521 B2), VASBINGER (US 20180179447 A1), and FUKUOKA (US 20180282936 A1).
For claim 1, ANDERSEN teaches a method of creating a hemp composite by processing hemp and dispersing in water [0014 and 0093] (A method of making a hemp composite, the method comprising: processing hemp to yield a processed hemp, wherein the processed hemp comprises water). ANDERSEN does not teach combining the processed hemp and paper with oil prior to draining. LACKINGER discloses adding malleated vegetable oils to paper into the stock prior to papermaking and drying [abstract]. At the time of the invention, it would be obvious to add the bio-oil of LACKINGER to the hemp paper mixture before papermaking to internal size the paper and thereby give the paper water resistance. The user could expect reasonable success given the similarity in endeavor and success found in both prior art.
Regarding the amine containing bio-oil limitation, ANDERSEN does not teach combining the processed hemp and paper with oil prior to draining. LACKINGER discloses adding malleated vegetable oils to paper into the stock prior to papermaking and drying [abstract]. LACKINGER uses vegetable oil (bio-oil) as a sizing agent. LACKINGER is silent to the bio-oil being amine rich. VASBINGER teaches amine can be added to improve the stability of the bio-oil used [0166]. It would be obvious to one skilled in the arts at the time of invention to modify the bio-oil taught by LACKINGER with the amine rich bio-oil of VASBINGER to produce a bio-oil sizing solution. One would be motivated to modify the bio-oil of LACKINGER with the amine-rich bio oil of VASBINGER based on the increased stability when amine is introduced to bio-oils as taught by VASBINGER. (combining the processed hemp with paper and bio-oil to yield a hemp mixture, wherein the bio-oil comprises amines) ANDERSEN also teaches the hemp mixture is filtered to remove water then dried [0029] (removing at least some of the water from the hemp mixture; and drying the hemp mixture to yield the hemp composite).
Regarding the masonry concrete limitation, the examiner agrees that ANDERSEN does not teach the product used as masonry bricks or a concrete masonry units. ANDERSEN teaches the invention may be used for packaging product [abstract]. FUKUOKA (US 20180282936 A1) teaches a similar composite made from hemp pulp fibers [0063] and sizing agents [0129] that are processed in an aqueous suspension [0064]. FUKUOKA also teaches the pulp is processed into composites including bricks and concrete [0081].The examiner understands bricks and concrete to be synonymous with masonry brick and concrete masonry unit respectively. FUKUOKA teaches that the invention is improves consistent resistance coverage due to the even covering of fiber by the particulate additives and the additive method makes the invention easier to handle when dried [0014]. This teaches the limitation of (in the form of a masonry brick or a concrete masonry unit). It would be obvious to one skilled in the arts at the time of invention to modify the paperboard structure taught by ANDERSEN to form the concrete brick of FUKUOKA. One would be motivated to modify the paperboard production based on the common use of sizing additive with hemp to form a rigid package structure (paper board by ANDERSEN and concrete brick by FUKUOKA) and the added benefit of consistent coverage/resistance.
For claim 2, ANDERSEN, LACKINGER, VASBINGER, and FUKUOKA teach as above. ANDERSEN teaches the stalk of the hemp may be used [0007] (The method of claim 1, wherein the hemp comprises hemp stalks.)
For claim 3, ANDERSEN, LACKINGER, VASBINGER, and FUKUOKA teach as above. ANDERSEN teaches the use of a shredder [0016] (The method of claim 1, wherein processing the hemp comprises shredding and pulverizing the hemp).
For claim 4, ANDERSEN, LACKINGER, VASBINGER, and FUKUOKA teach as above. ANDERSEN teaches hemp is mixed with water when refined [0022]. The process is completed “at least 150°C” which would boil the water [0022]. (The method of claim 3, wherein processing the hemp further comprises combining the hemp with boiling water to yield a pulp mixture).
For claim 5, ANDERSEN, LACKINGER, VASBINGER, and FUKUOKA teach as above. ANDERSEN teaches a retting process to breakdown the cellular structure of the hemp [0016]. (The method of claim 4, wherein processing the hemp further comprises breaking down cell walls of the hemp in the pulp mixture).
For claim 6, ANDERSEN, LACKINGER, VASBINGER, and FUKUOKA teach as above. ANDERSEN teaches a retting process that uses sodium bicarbonate to breakdown the cellular structure of the hemp [0016]. (The method of claim 5, wherein breaking down the cell walls of the hemp comprises combining the pulp mixture with sodium bicarbonate).
For claim 7, ANDERSEN, LACKINGER, VASBINGER, and FUKUOKA teach as above. ANDERSEN teaches that the process used produces a hemp product with a low curl that tends to production of paper with a higher elastic modulus [0136]. The intention of the process is to achieve a selected elasticity of the hemp composite. (The method of claim 4, further comprising adjusting a weight ratio of hemp to water in the pulp mixture to achieve a selected elasticity of the hemp composite).
For claim 8, ANDERSEN, LACKINGER, VASBINGER, and FUKUOKA teach as above. ANDERSEN also teaches the hemp mixture is filtered to remove water [0029]. (The method of claim 4, further comprising removing at least some of the water from the pulp mixture to yield a drained pulp mixture).
For claim 9, ANDERSEN, LACKINGER, VASBINGER, and FUKUOKA teach as above. ANDERSEN also teaches a process where an aqueous solution is applied to the hemp paper material after drying [0030]. (The method of claim 8, further comprising combining the drained pulp mixture with water at ambient temperature to yield the processed hemp.)
For claim 10, ANDERSEN, LACKINGER, VASBINGER, and FUKUOKA teach as above. ANDERSEN teaches the use of a shredder to shred the mixture [0016]. (The method of claim 1, wherein the paper is shredded.)
For claim 13, ANDERSEN, LACKINGER, VASBINGER, and FUKUOKA teach as above. Regarding the amine containing bio-oil limitation, ANDERSEN does not teach combining the processed hemp and paper with oil prior to draining. LACKINGER discloses adding malleated vegetable oils to paper into the stock prior to papermaking and drying [abstract]. LACKINGER uses vegetable oil (bio-oil) as a sizing agent. LACKINGER is silent to the bio-oil being amine rich. VASBINGER teaches amine can be added to improve the stability of the bio-oil used [0166]. It would be obvious to one skilled in the arts at the time of invention to modify the bio-oil taught by LACKINGER with the amine rich bio-oil of VASBINGER to produce a bio-oil sizing solution. One would be motivated to modify the bio-oil of LACKINGER with the amine-rich bio oil of VASBINGER based on the increased stability when amine is introduced to bio-oils as taught by VASBINGER. (The method of claim 1, wherein the bio-oil is an amine-rich bio-oil.)
For claim 14, ANDERSEN, LACKINGER, VASBINGER, and FUKUOKA teach as above. ANDERSEN teaches the mixture is pressed, which shapes the product, before drying [0092]. (The method of claim 1, further comprising shaping the hemp mixture before drying the hemp mixture).
For claim 15, ANDERSEN, LACKINGER, VASBINGER, and FUKUOKA teach as above. ANDERSEN does not teach the use of oils in solution. LACKINGER teaches the use of oils as outlined above. LACKINGER discloses adding malleated vegetable oils to paper into the stock prior to papermaking and drying [abstract]. At the time of the invention, it would be obvious to add the bio-oil of LACKINGER to the hemp paper mixture before papermaking to internal size the paper and thereby give the paper water (The method of claim 1, wherein the hemp composite is oil-infused.)
For claim 16, ANDERSEN, LACKINGER, VASBINGER, and FUKUOKA teach as above. FUKUOKA also teaches the pulp is processed into composites including bricks and concrete [0081].The examiner understands bricks to be synonymous with masonry brick. (An article formed from the hemp mixture of claim 1, wherein the article is a masonry brick).
For claim 17, ANDERSEN, LACKINGER, VASBINGER, and FUKUOKA teach as above (An article formed from the hemp mixture of claim 1). ANDERSEN does not teach the product used as masonry bricks or a concrete masonry units. ANDERSEN teaches the invention may be used for packaging product [abstract]. FUKUOKA (US 20180282936 A1) teaches a similar composite made from hemp pulp fibers [0063] and sizing agents [0129] that are processed in an aqueous suspension [0064]. FUKUOKA also teaches the pulp is processed into composites including bricks and concrete [0081].The examiner understands bricks and concrete to be synonymous with concrete masonry unit. FUKUOKA teaches that the invention is improves consistent resistance coverage due to the even covering of fiber by the particulate additives and the additive method makes the invention easier to handle when dried [0014]. This teaches the limitation of (wherein the article is a concrete masonry unit). It would be obvious to one skilled in the arts at the time of invention to modify the paperboard structure taught by ANDERSEN to form the concrete brick of FUKUOKA. One would be motivated to modify the paperboard production based on the common use of sizing additive with hemp to form a rigid package structure (paper board by ANDERSEN and concrete brick by FUKUOKA) and the added benefit of consistent coverage/resistance. (An article formed from the hemp mixture of claim 1, wherein the article is a concrete masonry unit).
For claim 19, ANDERSEN, LACKINGER, VASBINGER, and FUKUOKA teach as above. ANDERSEN teaches a method of creating a hemp composite by processing hemp and dispersing in water [0014 and 0093] ANDERSEN also teaches combining the hemp by-product with recycled fibers [0033]. ANDERSEN is silent to the recycled fibers originating from post-consumer paper. Recycled fibers could include recycled fiber as evidenced by SMOOK [p194 column 2]. ANDERSEN does not teach combining the processed hemp and paper with oil prior to draining. LACKINGER discloses adding malleated vegetable oils to paper into the stock prior to papermaking and drying [abstract]. At the time of the invention, it would be obvious to add the bio-oil of LACKINGER to the hemp paper mixture before papermaking to internal size the paper and thereby give the paper water resistance. The user could expect reasonable success given the similarity in endeavor and success found in both prior art. ANDERSEN also teaches the hemp mixture is filtered to remove water then dried [0029] (A hemp composite comprising: hemp; paper; and bio-oil).
Regarding the amine containing bio-oil limitation, ANDERSEN does not teach combining the processed hemp and paper with oil prior to draining. LACKINGER discloses adding malleated vegetable oils to paper into the stock prior to papermaking and drying [abstract]. LACKINGER uses vegetable oil (bio-oil) as a sizing agent. LACKINGER is silent to the bio-oil being amine rich. VASBINGER teaches amine can be added to improve the stability of the bio-oil used [0166]. It would be obvious to one skilled in the arts at the time of invention to modify the bio-oil taught by LACKINGER with the amine rich bio-oil of VASBINGER to produce a bio-oil sizing solution. One would be motivated to modify the bio-oil of LACKINGER with the amine-rich bio oil of VASBINGER based on the increased stability when amine is introduced to bio-oils as taught by VASBINGER. (wherein the bio-oil comprises amines).
Regarding the masonry concrete limitation, the examiner agrees that ANDERSEN does not teach the product used as masonry bricks or a concrete masonry units. ANDERSEN teaches the invention may be used for packaging product [abstract]. FUKUOKA teaches a similar composite made from hemp pulp fibers [0063] and sizing agents [0129] that are processed in an aqueous suspension [0064]. FUKUOKA also teaches the pulp is processed into composites including bricks and concrete [0081].The examiner understands bricks and concrete to be synonymous with masonry brick and concrete masonry unit respectively. FUKUOKA teaches that the invention is improves consistent resistance coverage due to the even covering of fiber by the particulate additives and the additive method makes the invention easier to handle when dried [0014]. This teaches the limitation of (wherein the hemp composite is in the form of a masonry brick or a concrete masonry unit). It would be obvious to one skilled in the arts at the time of invention to modify the paperboard structure taught by ANDERSEN to form the concrete brick of FUKUOKA. One would be motivated to modify the paperboard production based on the common use of sizing additive with hemp to form a rigid package structure (paper board by ANDERSEN and concrete brick by FUKUOKA) and the added benefit of consistent coverage/resistance.
For claim 20, ANDERSEN, LACKINGER, VASBINGER, and FUKUOKA teach as above. ANDERSEN teaches the stalk of the hemp may be used [0007]. (The composite of claim 19, wherein the hemp comprises hemp stalks).
For claim 22, ANDERSEN, LACKINGER, VASBINGER, and FUKUOKA teach as above. ANDERSEN does not teach combining the processed hemp and paper with oil prior to draining. LACKINGER discloses adding malleated vegetable oils to paper into the stock prior to papermaking and drying [abstract]. At the time of the invention, it would be obvious to add the bio-oil of LACKINGER to the hemp paper mixture before papermaking to internal size the paper and thereby give the paper water resistance. The user could expect reasonable success given the similarity in endeavor and success found in both prior art. (The composite of claim 19, wherein the bio-oil is amine-rich bio-oil.)
For claim 23, ANDERSEN, LACKINGER, VASBINGER, and FUKUOKA teach as above. ANDERSEN and teach a composition of hemp, oil, and recycled paper pressed into a product. (An article comprising the composite of claim 19).
For claim 24, ANDERSEN, LACKINGER, VASBINGER, and FUKUOKA teach as above. ANDERSEN does not teach the product used as masonry bricks or a concrete masonry units. ANDERSEN teaches the invention may be used for packaging product [abstract]. FUKUOKA teaches a similar composite made from hemp pulp fibers [0063] and sizing agents [0129] that are processed in an aqueous suspension [0064]. FUKUOKA also teaches the pulp is processed into composites including bricks and concrete [0081].The examiner understands bricks and concrete to be synonymous with concrete masonry unit. FUKUOKA teaches that the invention is improves consistent resistance coverage due to the even covering of fiber by the particulate additives and the additive method makes the invention easier to handle when dried [0014]. This teaches the limitation of (wherein the article is a concrete masonry unit). It would be obvious to one skilled in the arts at the time of invention to modify the paperboard structure taught by ANDERSEN to form the concrete brick of FUKUOKA. One would be motivated to modify the paperboard production based on the common use of sizing additive with hemp to form a rigid package structure (paper board by ANDERSEN and concrete brick by FUKUOKA) and the added benefit of consistent coverage/resistance. (The article of claim 23, wherein the article is one of clay pigeons, masonry bricks and concrete masonry units).
For claim 27, ANDERSEN, LACKINGER, VASBINGER, and FUKUOKA teach as above (The method of claim 26). ANDERSEN does not teach combining the processed hemp and paper with oil prior to draining. LACKINGER discloses adding malleated vegetable oils to paper into the stock prior to papermaking and drying [abstract]. LACKINGER uses vegetable oil (bio-oil) as a sizing agent. LACKINGER is silent to the bio-oil being amine rich. VASBINGER teaches amine can be added to improve the stability of the bio-oil used [0166]. It would be obvious to one skilled in the arts at the time of invention to modify the bio-oil taught by LACKINGER with the amine rich bio-oil of VASBINGER to produce a bio-oil sizing solution. One would be motivated to modify the bio-oil of LACKINGER with the amine-rich bio oil of VASBINGER based on the increased stability when amine is introduced to bio-oils as taught by VASBINGER. (wherein the oil comprises amine-rich bio-oil)
Claim 11 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ANDERSEN (US 20190264385 A1) in view of LACKINGER (US 8512521 B2), VASBINGER (US 20180179447 A1), and FUKUOKA (US 20180282936 A1) as evidenced by Handbook for Pulp and Paper Technologists by SMOOK.
For claim 11, ANDERSEN, LACKINGER, VASBINGER, and FUKUOKA teach as above. ANDERSEN also teaches combining the hemp by-product with recycled fibers [0033]. ANDERSEN is silent to the recycled fibers originating from post-consumer paper. Recycled fibers could include recycled fiber as evidenced by SMOOK [p194 column 2]. (The method of claim 10, wherein the paper comprises post-consumer recycled paper).
For claim 21, ANDERSEN, LACKINGER, VASBINGER, and FUKUOKA teach as above. ANDERSEN also teaches combining the hemp by-product with recycled fibers [0033]. ANDERSEN is silent to the recycled fibers originating from post-consumer paper. Recycled fibers could include recycled fiber as evidenced by SMOOK [p194 column 2]. (The composite of claim 19, wherein the paper comprises post-consumer recycled paper).
Claims 26 and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ANDERSEN (US 20190264385 A1), LACKINGER (US 8512521 B2) as applied above, in further view of FUKUOKA (US 20180282936 A1).
For claim 26, ANDERSEN teaches a method of creating a hemp composite by processing hemp and dispersing in water [0014 and 0093] (A method of making a building material, the method comprising: processing hemp to yield a processed hemp wherein the processed hemp comprises water). ANDERSEN also teaches combining the hemp by-product with recycled fibers [0033]. ANDERSEN does not teach combining the processed hemp and paper with oil prior to draining. LACKINGER discloses adding malleated vegetable oils to paper into the stock prior to papermaking and drying [abstract] (combining the processed hemp with paper and oil to yield a hemp mixture). At the time of the invention, it would be obvious to add the bio-oil of LACKINGER to the hemp paper mixture before papermaking to internal size the paper and thereby give the paper water resistance. The user could expect reasonable success given the similarity in endeavor and success found in both prior art. ANDERSEN also teaches the hemp mixture is filtered to remove water then dried [0029] (removing at least some of the water from the hemp mixture; and drying the hemp mixture to yield the building material).
ANDERSEN does not teach the product used as masonry bricks or a concrete masonry units. ANDERSEN teaches the invention may be used for packaging product [abstract]. FUKUOKA teaches a similar composite made from hemp pulp fibers [0063] and sizing agents [0129] that are processed in an aqueous suspension [0064]. FUKUOKA also teaches the pulp is processed into composites including bricks and concrete [0081].The examiner understands bricks and concrete to be synonymous with concrete masonry unit. FUKUOKA teaches that the invention is improves consistent resistance coverage due to the even covering of fiber by the particulate additives and the additive method makes the invention easier to handle when dried [0014]. This teaches the limitation of (wherein the article is a concrete masonry unit). It would be obvious to one skilled in the arts at the time of invention to modify the paperboard structure taught by ANDERSEN to form the concrete brick of FUKUOKA. One would be motivated to modify the paperboard production based on the common use of sizing additive with hemp to form a rigid package structure (paper board by ANDERSEN and concrete brick by FUKUOKA) and the added benefit of consistent coverage/resistance. (wherein the building material comprises one of masonry bricks, and concrete masonry units).
For claim 28, ANDERSEN, LACKINGER, and FUKUOKA teach as above. One skilled in the arts at the time of invention, could produce the resulting product from following the instruction of the art from ANDERSEN, LACKINGER, VASBINGER and FUKUOKA. The combination of art from ANDERSEN, LACKINGER, VASBINGER and FUKUOKA would result in a method of claim 26. The resulting product from the combined process would be the product of the instant claim as well (The building material formed by the method of claim 26).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEPHEN M RUSSELL whose telephone number is (571)272-6907. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri: 7:30 to 4:30 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, Abbas Rashid can be reached on (571) 270-7457. 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.
/S.M.R./Examiner, Art Unit 1748 /JACOB T MINSKEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1748