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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim 54 is rejected under 35 USC §102(a)(1)/103. This rejection is set forth in the prior Office action mailed on December 17, 2025.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on March 17, 2026 with regard to claim 54 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Claim 54 is a product by process claim and Du teaches a product which has all the limitations of the claimed product, i.e., a fiberboard make with plasma-treated plant fibers and not having the claimed adhesive, since Du uses Lignin, albeit being made by a different process and it has been held that the patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). As the afore mentioned claims are product by process claims, it is deemed that "[A]ny difference imparted by the product by process claims would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made because where the examiner has found a substantially similar product as in the applied prior art the burden of proof is shifted to the applicants to establish that their product is patentably distinct, ..." In re Brown, 173 U.S.P.Q. 685, and In re Fessmann, 180 U.S.P.Q. 324. Further, "[P]rocess limitations are significant only to the extent that they distinguish the claimed product over the prior art product." In re Luck, 177 U.S.P.Q. 523 (1973). In the event any differences can be shown for the product -by-process claim 54 as opposed to the product taught by the reference Du such differences would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as routine modification of the product in the absence of a showing unexpected results, see In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964 (CAFC 1985).
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 6-9 of, filed on March 17, 2026, with respect to claims 44-53 and 70-72 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of those claims on has been withdrawn.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 44-53 and 70-72 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art does not teach nor fairly suggest a process of making a fiberboard by compressing plasma-treated particulate material1, the compressing being done in the absence of any liquid o solid substance added to the plasma-treated particulate material2, as claimed. See also applicants’ arguments filed on March 17, 2026.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSE A FORTUNA whose telephone number is (571)272-1188. The examiner can normally be reached MONDAY- FRIDAY 11:30 PM- 9:00 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, Abbas Rashid can be reached at 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.
/JOSE A FORTUNA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1748
JAF
1 The plant-derived material has been interpreted as just “cellulosic materials” without any solid-liquid component/product/material added to it. Claim 46, (Renumbered claim 3), has been interpreted as if an adhesive is added different to the ones explicitly recited, they would be added in gas-form.
2 The plant-derived material has been interpreted as just “cellulosic materials” without any solid-liquid component/product/material added to it. Claim 46, (Renumbered claim 3), has been interpreted as if an adhesive is added different to the ones explicitly recited, they would be added in gas-form.