DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restriction
Claims 35-36, 38, 40, 42, 44, 50 of Group II, are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 of claims 1, 4, 6, 8, 10-13, 15, 22, 25-26, 30 of Group I, was made without traverse in the reply filed on January 26, 2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 1, 4, 6, 8, 10-13, 15, 22, 25-26, 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
In line 4 of claim 1, it is unclear whether “the binder composition” refers to the “a binder reaction mixture” in the preceding line 3, or is a component of the “binder reaction mixture”. For the purposes of examination, the first interpretation is used.
Claims 4, 6, 8, 10-13, 15, 22, 25-26, 30 depend on and include all the subject matter of claim 1, but fail to provide any solutions to the indefinite issue described above.
In addition, in line 2 of claim 13, it is unclear what other components are contained in the “a glucose syrup” aside from glucose, and it is unclear what wt% of the glucose syrup is comprised of the glucose. For the purposes of examination, a sugar syrup that contains more than 50 wt% of glucose is deemed to qualify as the “a glucose syrup”.
In addition, in line 2 of claim 15, it is unclear what other components are contained in the “a high fructose corn syrup” aside from fructose and glucose, and it is unclear what wt% of the high fructose corn syrup is comprised of the fructose, and what wt% of the high fructose corn syrup is comprised of the glucose. For the purposes of examination, a sugar syrup that contains more than 50 wt% of fructose and less than 50 wt% of glucose, is deemed to qualify as the a “high fructose corn syrup”.
Clarification and/or amendment, accompanied by relevant citation(s) from the specification are required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
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, 6, 8, 25-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jackson (US 2010/0087571) in view of Lester (US 2019/0048501).
Regarding claim 1, Jackson teaches an engineered wood (manufactured composite wood board [0007]) precursor mixture comprising: a plurality of wood substrates (wood particles, claims 21, 34 [0139]); a binder (organic binder, claims 21, 34 [0139], binder [0127]) reaction mixture (composite, claim 21 [0139]) present in an amount of from about 8 parts to about 18 parts per 100 parts of the dry weight of the plurality of wood substrates (weight of dry resin to weight of dry wood particles, claim 34 [0139]) which is within the claimed range of from 3 parts to 25 parts per 100 parts, the binder composition ([0127]) comprising: an aqueous portion (aqueous composition [0127]) comprising: a carbohydrate-containing component (carbohydrate reactant [0123, 0127]), the carbohydrate-containing component comprising glucose, fructose, sucrose, or a mixture thereof (combination [0123]), where the combined weight of the glucose, fructose, sucrose, or a mixture thereof is 100 wt% (serves as the carbohydrate reactant [0123]) which is within the claimed range of at least 60 wt%, and a base (amine reactant [0127]), wherein a pH of the aqueous portion is 10 [0138]) which is within the claimed range of from 10 to 14.
Jackson fails to teach that the engineered wood precursor mixture further comprises an at least partially non-dissolved polypeptide-containing component that is soy flour, which is present in an amount that is in a range of from 20 wt% to 85 wt% based on the dry weight of the binder reaction mixture, that the carbohydrate-containing component is present in a range of from 2 wt% to 85 wt% based on a dry weight of the binder reaction mixture, and that the base is present in an amount of 1 wt% to 33 wt% based on a dry weight of the binder reaction mixture.
However, Lester teaches that a binder reaction mixture comprising an aqueous portion (soy-containing binder compositions may be aqueous mixtures [0035]) comprising a carbohydrate-containing component and a base (nitrogen-containing compound [0030]), further comprises an at least partially non-dissolved polypeptide-containing component that is soy flour (soy protein [0030] may be … soy flour [0031]) in an amount of 50 wt% based on the dry weight of the binder reaction mixture ([0011, 0033]) which is within the claimed range of from 20 wt% to 85 wt%, for the purpose of providing the desired improvement in total tensile strength (increase [0010]). Lester teaches that the carbohydrate-containing component is present in an amount of 37.5 wt% (carbohydrate-containing binder with soy flour in a 75 wt% ratio ([0096] of 50 wt% soy flour) which is within the claimed range of from 2 wt% to 85 wt%, based on a dry weight of the binder reaction mixture, for the purpose of providing the desired shear viscosity profile at different shear rates ([0011]) along with the improved tensile strength ([0010]), such that when the base makes up the remainder of the binder reaction mixture, it is present in an amount of 12.5 wt% or less (100 - 50 - 37.5) which overlaps the claimed range of 1 wt% to 33 wt%, based on a dry weight of the binder reaction mixture.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time, to have further comprised an at least partially non-dissolved polypeptide-containing component that is soy flour, in an amount that is within a range of from 20 wt% to 85 wt%, based on a dry weight of the binder reaction mixture, in the engineered wood precursor mixture of Jackson, in order to obtain the desired improvement in tensile strength, as taught by Lester; and further, to have comprised the carbohydrate-containing component in an amount that is within a range of from 2 wt% to 85 wt%, based on a dry weight of the binder reaction mixture, such that the base is comprised in an amount that is within a range of 1 wt% to 33 wt%, based on a dry weight of the binder reaction mixture, in order to obtain the desired shear viscosity profile at different shear rates, along with the improvement in tensile strength, as taught by Lester.
Regarding claim 4, Jackson teaches that the carbohydrate-containing component comprises glucose, fructose, or a mixture thereof (combination [0123]) where the combined weight of the glucose, fructose, or a mixture thereof is 100 wt% of the carbohydrate-containing component (serves as the carbohydrate reactant [0123]), but is silent as to whether the total weight percent of glucose and fructose is in a range of 20 wt% to 60 wt% based on a dry weight of the binder reaction mixture.
However, Lester teaches that the carbohydrate-containing component is present in an amount of 37.5 wt% (carbohydrate-containing binder with soy flour in a 75 wt% ratio ([0096] of 50 wt% soy flour) which is within the claimed range of 20 wt% to 60 wt%, for the purpose of providing the desired shear viscosity profile at different shear rates ([0011]) along with the improved tensile strength ([0010]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time, to have provided the total weight percent of glucose and fructose, in a range of 20 wt% to 60 wt%, based on dry weight of the binder reaction mixture in the engineered wood precursor mixture of Jackson, in a range of 20 wt% to 60 wt%, in order to obtain the desired shear viscosity profile at different shear rates, along with the improvement in tensile strength, as taught by Lester.
Regarding claim 6, Lester teaches that the polypeptide-containing component comprises soy flour ([0031]), wherein the soy flour has greater than 50 wt% protein based on the total soy flour present ([0031]), which overlaps the claimed range of from 40 wt% to 65 wt%, for the purpose of providing the desired improvement in total tensile strength, as described above.
Regarding claim 8, Lester teaches that the soy protein comprises 20 wt% of the dry weight of the binder reaction mixture (binder composition [0033]) such that the soy flour comprises 40 wt% (soy flour has greater than 50 wt% soy protein [0031], such that 40 wt% of soy flour has 20 wt% of soy protein) of the dry weight of the binder reaction mixture, which is within the claimed range of from 30 wt% to 80 wt%, for the purpose of providing the desired improvement in total tensile strength, as described above.
Regarding claim 25, Jackson teaches that the plurality of wood substrates comprise one or more strands, one or more particles, or one or more fibers ([0041]).
Regarding claim 26, Lester teaches that the carbohydrate-containing component is present in an amount of 37.5 wt% (carbohydrate-containing binder with soy flour in a 75 wt% ratio ([0096] of 50 wt% soy flour) which is within the claimed range of from 2 wt% to 85 wt%, for the purpose of providing the desired shear viscosity profile at different shear rates ([0011]) along with the improved tensile strength ([0010]), such that when the base makes up the remainder of the binder reaction mixture, it is present in an amount of 12.5 wt% or less (100 - 50 - 37.5) which overlaps the claimed range of 3 wt% to 21 wt%, for the purpose of providing the desired shear viscosity profile at different shear rates, along with the improvement in tensile strength, as described above.
Claims 10-12, 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jackson in view of Lester, as applied to claims 1, 4, 6, 8, 25-26, above, and further in view of Grigsby (US 2016/0333240).
Jackson, as modified by Lester, teaches the engineered wood precursor mixture comprising the binder reaction mixture comprising the aqueous portion, as described above.
Regarding claim 10, Jackson teaches that a pH of the aqueous portion is 10 [0138]) which is just outside, and hence fails to teach the claimed range of from 11 to 14.
However, Jackson teaches in the broader disclosure that the pH is alkaline, and that the pH of 10 is merely exemplary (for example [0138]).
Grigsby teaches that in an engineered wood precursor mixture (wood composite [0531]) comprising a binder reaction mixture that comprises an aqueous portion (aqueous adhesive composition [0139]), the pH is alkaline ([0169]), and can be increased from 10 to 13 ([0172]) which is within the claimed range of from 11 to 14, for the purpose of providing the desired solubilization or dispersion ([0169]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time, to have increased the pH of the aqueous portion of the binder reaction mixture of the engineered wood precursor mixture of Jackson, as modified by Lester, from 10 to one that is within a range of 11 to 14, in order to obtain the desired solubilization or dispersion, as taught by Grigsby.
Regarding claims 11-12, Grigsby teaches that the base comprises NaOH (sodium hydroxide added to adjust the solution to pH 11 [0482]), for the purpose of providing the desired solubilization or dispersion, as described above.
Regarding claim 30, Jackson fails to teach that engineered wood precursor mixture further comprises sodium sulfite or sodium bisulfite.
However, Grigsby teaches that the engineered wood precursor mixture further comprises sodium sulfite or sodium bisulfite ([0403]), for the purpose of providing the desired solubilization or dispersion of the polypeptide (protein [0403, 0318]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time, to have further comprised sodium sulfite or sodium bisulfite, in the engineered wood precursor mixture of Jackson, as modified by Lester, in order to obtain the desired solubilization or dispersion of the at least partially non-dissolved polypeptide-containing component, as taught by Grigsby.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jackson in view of Lester, as applied to claims 1, 4, 6, 8, 25-26 above, and further in view of Abbott (WO-2019/158917-A1), as evidenced by Funda (US 2006/0099301).
Jackson, as modified by Lester, teaches the engineered wood precursor mixture comprising the binder reaction mixture, the binder reaction mixture comprising the aqueous portion comprising the carbohydrate-containing component, as described above. In addition, Jackson teaches that the carbohydrate-containing component comprises glucose which has a dextrose equivalent (DE) of 100 (glucose (i.e. dextrose) [0123]) which is within the claimed range of at least 60. Jackson fails to teach that that the glucose is in the form of a glucose syrup which has a DE of at least 60.
However, Funda teaches that while glucose has a dextrose equivalent (DE) of 100 ([0018]), a commercially available glucose syrup which has a DE of 95 ([0018]) which is within the claimed range of at least 60, can be used as a source of the glucose, for the purpose of providing the desired manufacturing convenience (line 14 of page 10).
Abbott teaches that in an engineered wood (lines 6-20 of page 5) precursor mixture comprising a binder reaction mixture (resin binder composition, lines 1 of page 12) comprising an aqueous portion (water-based solution, line 1 of page 12) comprising a carbohydrate-containing component (sugar, line 5 of page 12), the carbohydrate-containing component comprises glucose in the form of a glucose syrup (line 21 of page 10), for the purpose of providing the desired binding with reduced swelling of the plurality of wood substrates (wood composite boards, lines 22-23 of page 2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time, to have provided the glucose in the form of a glucose syrup with a DE of at least 60, in the carbohydrate-containing component of the aqueous portion of the binder reaction mixture of the engineered wood precursor mixture of Jackson, as modified by Lester, in order to obtain the desired manufacturing convenience, as taught by Funday, and to obtain the desired binding with reduced swelling of the plurality of wood substrates, as taught by Abbott.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jackson in view of Lester, as applied to claims 1, 4, 6, 8, 25-26 above, and further in view of Abbott (WO-2019/158917-A1).
Jackson, as modified by Lester, teaches the engineered wood precursor mixture comprising the binder reaction mixture comprising the aqueous portion comprising the carbohydrate-containing component, as described above. In addition, Jackson teaches that the carbohydrate-containing component comprises glucose, fructose, or a mixture thereof (combination [0123]) where the combined weight of the glucose, fructose, or a mixture thereof is 100 wt% of the carbohydrate-containing component (serves as the carbohydrate reactant [0123]). Jackson fails to teach that the mixture of fructose and glucose is in the form of a high fructose corn syrup comprising at least 90 wt% fructose and glucose.
However, Abbott teaches that in an engineered wood (lines 6-20 of page 5) precursor mixture comprising a binder reaction mixture (resin binder composition, lines 1 of page 12) comprising an aqueous portion (water-based solution, line 1 of page 12) comprising a carbohydrate-containing component (sugar, line 5 of page 12), the carbohydrate-containing component comprises high fructose corn syrup (from corn, lines 20-22 of page 10) which comprises at least 90 wt% fructose and glucose, as disclosed in Applicant’s specification (last two lines of page 7), for the purpose of providing the desired binding with reduced swelling of the plurality of wood substrates (wood composite boards, lines 22-23 of page 2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time, to have provided the mixture of fructose and glucose, in the form of a high fructose corn syrup which comprises at least 90 wt% of the fructose and the glucose, in the carbohydrate-containing component of the aqueous portion of the binder reaction mixture of the engineered wood precursor mixture of Jackson, as modified by Lester, in order to obtain the desired binding with reduced swelling of the plurality of wood substrates, as taught by Abbott.
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jackson in view of Lester, as applied to claims 1, 4, 6, 8, 25-26 above, and further in view of Anderson (US 2019/0144727).
Jackson, as modified by Lester, teaches the engineered wood precursor mixture comprising the binder reaction mixture comprising the at least partially non-dissolved polypeptide-containing component which is soy flour, as described above.
Jackson is silent regarding a protein dispersibility index (PDI) of the soy flour, and hence fails to teach that the soy flour has a PDI of from 70 to 95.
However, Anderson teaches that soy flour has a PDI that is greater than 85 ([0033]) which overlaps the claimed range of from 70 to 95, for the purpose of providing the desired higher solubility of the soy flour (higher PDI, higher solubility [0033]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time, to have provided the soy flour in the binder reaction mixture of the engineered wood precursor mixture of Jackson, as modified by Lester, with a PDI that is within a range of from 70 to 95, in order to obtain the desired higher solubility of the soy flour, as taught by Anderson.
Any inquiry concerning this communication should be directed to Sow-Fun Hon whose telephone number is (571)272-1492. The examiner is on a flexible schedule but can usually be reached during a regular workweek between the hours of 10:00 AM and 6:00 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Aaron Austin, can be reached at (571)272-8935. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571)273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Center (https://patentcenter.uspto.gov). Should you have any questions on the Patent Center system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Sophie Hon/
Sow-Fun Hon
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1782
Prosecution Insights