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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 12/11/2025, has been entered.
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, 3, 4, 11, 12, 13, 14, 16, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pavlek (US20170267832, herein Pavlek), in the view of Braksmayer (WO2015196134, herein Braksmayer).
Regarding claims 1, 3, 4, Pavlek teaches a non-polymeric coupling agent formulation for wood-polymer composites comprising:
at least one organic peroxide [0013], in specific, “Luperox® 101; 2,5-dimethyl-2,5-di(t-butylperoxy)hexane” [0262] matches the organic peroxide “Luperox®101” [Instant application-specification_P15; L25] as t-butylperoxides, hence, possessing the property of wherein the at least one organic peroxide has a half-life of at least one hour at 98° C.
at least one non-polymeric bio-based additive selected from the group consisting of natural oils “Tung Oil is a pure, or substantially pure, bio-based oil preferably obtained by cold pressing seed from the nut of the Tung tree” [0263].
Pavlek teaches the drying oil comprises, consists essentially of, or consists of tung oil [0140] and the ratio of the drying oil to organic peroxide 1:0.24 [0141], lie in the claimed ratio of the organic peroxide to the non-polymeric additive.
Pavlek does not explicitly teach the natural acid, anhydride, bio-based additive, however, Braksmayer teaches “succinic acid”; succinic anhydride”, “boric acid” [P3; L4-8]. Pavlek and Braksmayer are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are both in the endeavor of the polyethylene-based composition formation via bio-based additive selection. It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the teachings of Braksmayer and provide wherein said the “succinic acid”; succinic anhydride” and “boric acid” [P3; L4-8] into the composition formation. Doing so would not only lead to “succinic acid”; succinic anhydride” and “boric acid” [P3; L4-8] serving as “dispersing agent” [P9; L20], as taught by Braksmayer, lead to the biomass crosslinking [P31; L14], but also lead to the curing of the wood composition of Braksmayer via the organic peroxide [0013] as taught by Pavlek.
The combination of two compositions, each of which is taught by the prior art to be useful for the same purpose, in order to for a third composition that is to be used for the very same purpose may be prima facie obvious. In re Susi, 440 F.2d 442, 445, 169.
Regarding claim 11, Pavlek teaches “all those organic peroxides; solid, room temperature stable” [0039]
Regarding claim 12, Pavlek does not explicitly teach the lubricant, however, Braksmayer teaches “lubricant” [P6; L9].
Pavlek and Braksmayer are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are both in the endeavor of the polyethylene-based composition formation via additive selection. It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Pavlek to add the teachings of Braksmayer and provide wherein said the “lubricant” [P6; L9] into the composition formation.
Doing so would lead to the desired property of “The lubricants assist in the processing of the composite, such as during extrusion. The lubricants allow for faster processing times and/or improve the appearance and uniformity of the wood product.” [P6; L9] as taught by Braksmayer.
Regarding claim 13, Pavlek teaches “masterbatch” [table 1, 0265].
Regarding claim 14, Pavlek teaches the carrier “Vul-Cup®” [table 1, 0265] which is “Vul-Cup® 40KE is m/p-di-t-butylperoxydiisopropylbenzene at 40% peroxide content on Burgess KE Clay” [0263] reads on the claimed carrier Burgess Clay.
Regarding claim 16, Pavlek teaches organic peroxide [0013], in specific, “Luperox® 101; 2,5-dimethyl-2,5-di(t-butylperoxy)hexane” [0262] matches the organic peroxide “Luperox®101” [Instant application-specification_P15; L25] as t-butylperoxides.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pavlek (US20170267832, herein Pavlek) and Braksmayer (WO2015196134, herein Braksmayer) as applied in claim 1, in the further view of Bohn (US20160009874, herein Bohn).
Regarding claim 2, Pavlek does not explicitly teach the wherein the at least one organic peroxide comprises at least one functionalized organic peroxide.
However, Bohn teaches “LUPEROX PNP 25; Arkema, Inc.” [0067] which is “functionalized organic peroxide may be selected from those room temperature stable peroxides (i.e., having at least I hour half-life at 98°C) that possess carboxylic acid, one or more double bonds capable of reacting with a free radical, methoxy or hydroxy functionality, such as for example t-butylperoxy maleic acid (Luperox® PNP-25 from Arkema).” [Instant application-specification_P7; L17], hence, matches the functionalized organic peroxide.
Pavlek and Bohn are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of organic peroxide based functional composition formation. It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Pavlek to add the teachings of Bohn and provide wherein said the “LUPEROX PNP 25; Arkema, Inc.” [0067] into the composition formation. Doing so would lead to the tire product development with the desired property of “For the cured properties, the materials were cured for 25 minutes at 150° C. and then tested for their tan δ properties. The percent improvement in the hysteresis of the rubber compositions having the functionalized master batch range from a 21% improvement to a 44% improvement over the witness composition.” [0073] as taught by Bohn.
Claims 9, 10, 19, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pavlek (US20170267832, herein Pavlek) and Braksmayer (WO2015196134, herein Braksmayer) as applied in claim 1, in the view of Nava (US20110275761, herein Nava).
Regarding claims 9, 10, Pavlek does not explicitly teach the natural acid, anhydride, bio-based additive, however, Nava teaches “hydroquinone monomethyl ether (HQMME), monotertiary butyl hydroquinone (MTBHQ)” [0053] as stabilizer.
Pavlek and Nava are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of organic peroxide based functional composition formation via organic acid selection. It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the teachings of Nava and provide wherein said the “hydroquinone monomethyl ether (HQMME), monotertiary butyl hydroquinone (MTBHQ)” [0053] into the composition formation. Doing so would lead to the desired property of “Because free radicals can be formed at the carbon-carbon double bonds through several different mechanisms, such as interactions between molecules with heat and light, the possibility of the formation of free radicals is quite high. Should this occur, there is a good possibility that the resin could crosslink during storage. Therefore, the right amount of inhibitor in the system is necessary to facilitate the minimization of stability problems.” [0053], as taught by Nava.
Regarding claim 19, Pavlek teaches filler [0144], but does not explicitly teach the specific filler, however, Nava teaches “flax” [0061]. Pavlek and Nava are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of organic peroxide based functional composition formation via organic acid selection. It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the teachings of Nava and provide wherein said the “flax” [0061] into the composition formation. Doing so would lead to the desired property of “high strength to weight ratio, stiffness, chemical resistance, thermal and electrical resistance, durability and reasonable cost.” [0061], as taught by Nava.
Regarding claim 20, Pavlek teaches “high-density polyethylene (HDPE), linear low-density polyethylene (LLDPE), low-density polyethylene (LDPE)” [0226]
Claims 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pavlek (US20170267832, herein Pavlek) and Braksmayer (WO2015196134, herein Braksmayer), as applied in claim 13, and in the further view of Bohn (US20160009874, herein Bohn).
Regarding claim 15, Pavlek teaches organic peroxide [0009], but does not explicitly teach the wherein the at least one organic peroxide comprises at least one functionalized organic peroxide. However, Bohn teaches “LUPEROX PNP 25; Arkema, Inc.” [0067] which is “functionalized organic peroxide may be selected from those room temperature stable peroxides (i.e., having at least I hour half-life at 98°C) that possess carboxylic acid, one or more double bonds capable of reacting with a free radical, methoxy or hydroxy functionality, such as for example t-butylperoxy maleic acid (Luperox® PNP-25 from Arkema).” [Instant application-specification_P7; L17], hence, matches the functionalized organic peroxide. Pavlek and Bohn are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of organic peroxide based functional composition formation. It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the teachings of Bohn and provide wherein said the “LUPEROX PNP 25; Arkema, Inc.” [0067] into the composition formation. Doing so would lead to the tire product development with the desired property of “For the cured properties, the materials were cured for 25 minutes at 150° C. and then tested for their tan δ properties. The percent improvement in the hysteresis of the rubber compositions having the functionalized master batch range from a 21% improvement to a 44% improvement over the witness composition.” [0073] as taught by Bohn.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pavlek (US20170267832, herein Pavlek) and Nava (US20110275761, herein Nava) as applied in claim 13, in the view of Braksmayer (WO2015196134, herein Braksmayer).
Regarding claim 21, Pavlek does not explicitly teach the form of a deck board, railing, fencing, or siding, however, Braksmayer teaches “railing, fencing, siding” [P6; L27].
Pavlek and Braksmayer are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are both in the endeavor of the polyethylene-based composition formation via bio-based additive selection. It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the teachings of Braksmayer and provide wherein said the “railing, fencing, siding” [P6; L27]. Doing so would lead to a more specified application area as taught by Braksmayer.
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pavlek (US20170267832, herein Pavlek), in the view of Nava (US20110275761, herein Nava).
Regarding claim 22, Pavlek teaches wood-polymer composite comprising:
i) at least one organic peroxide [0013], in specific, “Luperox® 101; 2,5-dimethyl-2,5-di(t-butylperoxy)hexane” [0262] matches the organic peroxide “Luperox®101” [Instant application-specification_P15; L25] as t-butylperoxides, hence, possessing the property of wherein the at least one organic peroxide has a half-life of at least one hour at 98° C.
iii) at least one non-polymeric bio-based additive selected from the group consisting of natural oils “Tung Oil is a pure, or substantially pure, bio-based oil preferably obtained by cold pressing seed from the nut of the Tung tree” [0263]; Pavlek teaches the drying oil comprises, consists essentially of, or consists of tung oil [0140] and the ratio of the drying oil to organic peroxide 1:0.24 [0141], lie in the claimed ratio of the organic peroxide to the non-polymeric additive.
Pavlek does not explicitly teach the natural acid, anhydride, bio-based additive, however, Braksmayer teaches “succinic acid”; succinic anhydride”, “boric acid” [P3; L4-8]. Pavlek and Braksmayer are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are both in the endeavor of the polyethylene-based composition formation via bio-based additive selection. It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the teachings of Braksmayer and provide wherein said the “succinic acid”; succinic anhydride” and “boric acid” [P3; L4-8] into the composition formation. Doing so would not only lead to “succinic acid”; succinic anhydride” and “boric acid” [P3; L4-8] serving as “dispersing agent” [P9; L20], as taught by Braksmayer, lead to the biomass crosslinking [P31; L14], but also lead to the curing of the wood composition of Braksmayer via the organic peroxide [0013] as taught by Pavlek.
The combination of two compositions, each of which is taught by the prior art to be useful for the same purpose, in order to for a third composition that is to be used for the very same purpose may be prima facie obvious. In re Susi, 440 F.2d 442, 445, 169.
Pavlek teaches c) “high-density polyethylene (HDPE), linear low-density polyethylene (LLDPE), low-density polyethylene (LDPE)” [0226]; d) at least one filler “Burgess Clay” [0145].
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pavlek (US20170267832, herein Pavlek) and Nava (US20110275761, herein Nava) as applied in claim 22, in the further view of Braksmayer (WO2015196134, herein Braksmayer).
Regarding claim 23, Pavlek does not explicitly teach the form of a deck board, railing, fencing, or siding, however, Braksmayer teaches “railing, fencing, siding” [P6; L27].
Pavlek and Braksmayer are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are both in the endeavor of the polyethylene-based composition formation via bio-based additive selection. It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the teachings of Braksmayer and provide wherein said the “railing, fencing, siding” [P6; L27]. Doing so would lead to a more specified application area as taught by Braksmayer.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/11/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to the “claim 1 is amended to recite that the ratio by weight of the organic peroxide to the non-polymeric additive is 1:2 to 1:9. Neither Pavlek nor Braksmayer teaches or suggests this feature. Even if, arguendo, Pavlek describes a ratio of the drying oil to the at least one organic peroxide, the reference does not recognize this ratio as a result effective variable”, is not persuasive.
In fact, Pavlek teaches organic peroxide [0013], in specific, “Luperox® 101; 2,5-dimethyl-2,5-di(t-butylperoxy)hexane” [0262] matches the organic peroxide “Luperox®101” [Instant application-specification_P15; L25] as t-butylperoxides; “Tung Oil is a pure, or substantially pure, bio-based oil preferably obtained by cold pressing seed from the nut of the Tung tree” [0263], which reads on non-polymeric bio-based additive selected from the group consisting of natural oils. Furthermore, Pavlek explicitly teaches the drying oil comprises, consists essentially of, or consists of tung oil [0140] and the ratio of the drying oil to organic peroxide 1:0.24 [0141], lies in the claimed ratio of the organic peroxide to the non-polymeric additive. Hence, Pavlek does not teach away the instant application.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Zhen Liu whose telephone number is (703)756-4782. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00 am - 5:00 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, Mark Eashoo can be reached on (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.
/Z. L./Examiner, Art Unit 1767
/KATARZYNA I KOLB/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1767