DETAILED ACTION
In Response filed on 09/02/2025, claims 1-9, 13-15, and 17 are pending. Claim 16 is cancel. Claim 1 is currently amended. Claims 1-9, 13-15, and 17 are pending in the current Office 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 .
Status of Previous Objections/Rejections
Previous claim objections are withdrawn based on the Applicant’s amendment.
Previous 35 USC 112(a) rejections have been withdrawn based on the Applicant’s amendment. However, new 35 USC 112(a) rejections have been established.
Previous 35 USC 112(b) rejections have been withdrawn based on the Applicant’s amendment.
35 USC 102 rejection is withdrawn based on the Applicant’s amendment.
35 USC 103 rejections are maintained in view of the Applicant’s amendment.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-9, 13-15, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 recites “blending the first portion of wood strands with a fast-curing adhesive system comprising a 1-compoennt adhesive with a lateen catalyst or accelerator, blending the second portion of wood strands with a fast-curing adhesive system comprising a 1-compoennt adhesive with a lateen catalyst or accelerator”. At most, the specification discloses “the present invention in one embodiment applies a fast-cure adhesive system. In one exemplary embodiment, the fast-cure adhesive system comprises a 1- component adhesive with a latent catalyst/accelerator. In an alternative embodiment, an adhesive may be mixed in-line with an external catalyst or accelerator before being applied to the OSB strands prior to mat formation (page 5, lines 2-7). In other words, the specification discloses applying fast-cure adhesive system prior to mat formation but does not disclose the fast-cure adhesive system is applied to both the first portion of the wood strands and the second portion of the wood strands which fail to comply with the written description requirement.
Claims 2-9, 13-15, and 17 are rejected by virtue of depending on a rejected claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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(s) 1-2, 6, 8-9, 14 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US2020/0392412 (“Jin et al” hereinafter Jin) and US2015/0151449A1 (Birkeland).
Regarding Claim 1, Jin teaches a method for producing a fire-retardant treated wood composite panel without fire-retardant build-up (abstract), comprising the steps of:
treating a first portion of wood strands ([0255], surface layer of the wood product) with a fire-retardant ([0255]-[0257]) with a melting point (all material has a melting point),
treating a second portion of wood strands ([0254], core layer of the wood product) with the fire-retardant ([0254] and [0256]) with a melting point (all material has a melting point);
forming a strand mat ([0258], afterwards the treated strands are formed into a mat so as to create a gradient) with at least a first layer with said first portion of wood strands treated with a first amount of the fire-retardant, and a second layer with said second portion of wood strands treated with a second amount of the fire-retardant, wherein the first amount of fire-retardant in the first layer is different from the second amount of fire-retardant in the second layer ([0258], whereby strands treated with water-soluble flame-retardant (equipped with a lower level of fire-retardant) form the core layer, while strands treated with water-soluble flame-retardant and flame-retardant powder (higher overall fire-retardant concentration) form the outer layers. Furthermore, [0171] discloses flame-retardant may be dispersed in clumps, more localized to the exterior of the layer, or formed as a gradient increasing in concentration towards the exterior of the layer, depending upon the desired end product and use);
applying pressure and heat by a press at a press temperature to the strand mat to form a wood composite board ([0258], the mat is conveyed to a press whereby the wood particles are compressed with sufficient pressure and temperature to cure the bonding resin to form a composite wood product); and
processing the wood composite board to form one or more fire-retardant treated composite wood panels ([0258], a composite wood product is formed).
Jin further teaches after drying, the furnish 110 is blended with additives 112 , such as adhesive(s) and wax(es), such that the furnish 110 can be pressed into the shape of an OSB [0158] and applying additives such as adhesives to the strands prior to forming one or more layers of the strand mat ([0166]), but fails to teach blending the first portion of wood strands with a fast-curing adhesive system comprising a 1-compoennt adhesive with a lateen catalyst or accelerator, blending the second portion of wood strands with a fast-curing adhesive system comprising a 1-compoennt adhesive with a lateen catalyst or accelerator.
However, Birkeland teaches blending the wood strands with a fast-curing adhesive system comprising a 1-compoennt adhesive with a lateen catalyst or accelerator ([0031], adding adhesives materials including additives such as borax, which is an accelerator).
Jin and Birkeland are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the same field of manufacturing improved wood product. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modified the method of Jin such that the it teaches the above discussed limitation as taught by Birkeland to improve reactivity, water resistance, and strength and enhanced cure of the adhesive ([0031]).
The modified Jin fails to explicitly teach blending the first portion of wood strands and the second portion of wood strands with a fast-curing adhesive system comprising a 1-compoennt adhesive with an accelerator.
However, Birkeland teaches blending the wood strands with a fast-curing adhesive system comprising a 1-compoennt adhesive with a lateen catalyst or accelerator ([0031], adding adhesives materials including additives such as borax, which is an accelerator). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to recognized that the blending occurs for both portions of the wood strands as taught by the modified Jin to ensure even distribution of the adhesive and accelerator to improve reactivity, water resistance, and strength and enhanced cure of the adhesive ([0031]) through the entire wood strands.
Regarding Claim 2, the modified Jin teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the fire-retardant and press temperature are selected so that the melting point of the fire-retardant is above the press temperature (Jin, [0102], zinc borates is used as a flame-retardant powder and Jin discloses the pressing temperature is 204°C [0259], which is below the melting point of the fire-retardant zinc borate which has a melting point of 1150°C according to the instant specification (Pages 3, line 25-page 4, line 1)).
Regarding Claim 6, the modified Jin teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the fire-retardant comprises zinc borate and the press temperature is equal to or no more than approximately 220°C (Jin discloses the pressing temperature is 204°C [0259]).
Since the claimed range overlaps or lies inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. Please see MPEP 2144.05(I).
Regarding Claim 8, the modified Jin teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the fire-retardant is applied in an amount of approximately 10% to approximately 20% of the weight of the wood strands (Jin, [0256], The amount of FR solution sprayed onto the strands is between 4 and 15%).
Since the claimed range overlaps or lies inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. Please see MPEP 2144.05(I).
Regarding Claim 9, the modified Jin teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the wood strands are treated with fire-retardant by applying fire-retardant at multiple points in the strand treatment process (Jin, [0171], the water-soluble flame retardant may be dispersed in clumps, more localized to the exterior of the layer, or formed as a gradient increasing in concentration towards the exterior of the layer, depending upon the desired end product and use ).
Regarding Claim 14, the modified Jin teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising the step of applying a release agent to a top surface of a bottom screen prior to the step of applying pressure and heat (Jin, [0258], optional 1-2% emulsion wax release agent are sprayed onto the strands and uniformly blended prior to the step of pressing and heating),
Regarding Claim 17, the modified Jin teaches a fire-resistant treated composite wood product produced by method 1 (Jin, [0007]. The patentability of product by process claims is determined by the patentability of the product. The product of Jin appears to be identical to that which is claimed. The burden is upon applicants to provide evidence that the prior at product of Jin does not possess the characteristics of the claimed product. MPEP 2113 (II)).
Claim(s) 3-5 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US2020/0392412 (“Jin et al” hereinafter Jin) and US2015/0151449A1 (Birkeland) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Preston (US2004/0028934A1).
Regarding Claim 3, the modified Jin teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the fire-retardant comprises boric acid (Jin, [0012], the flame-retardant powder includes a boric acid), Jin further teaches the press temperature is selected so that sufficient temperature to cure the bonding resin is obtained [0258] but fails to explicitly teach the press temperature is equal to or no more than approximately 168°C.
Preston discloses an analogous method of forming a fire-retardant wood-based composite (Abstract) wherein the pressing temperature used is based on the desired thickness and density of the product, size and type of the wood particles, moisture content of the particles, and type of binder [0059]. Preston further teaches the pressing temperature is selected so that sufficient temperature to cure the bonding resin is obtained [0059], wherein typical press temperatures vary from 93°C to 290°C [0065]; however, pressing temperatures greater than 230°C are undesirable since they can cause charring of the wood particles [0059].
As the desired thickness and density of the product, size and type of the wood particles, moisture content of the particles, and type of binder used are variables that can be modified by adjusting said pressing temperature, as evidenced by Preston ([0059]), the precise pressing temperature would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed pressing temperature cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the pressing temperature in the method disclosed by the modified Jin to obtain desired balance between thickness and density of the product, size and type of the wood particles, moisture content of the particles, and type of binder (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223).
Regarding Claims 4, 5, and 15, the modified Jin teaches the method of claim 1, Jin further teaches the press temperature is selected so that sufficient temperature to cure the bonding resin is obtained [0258] but fails to explicitly teach wherein the press temperature is approximately 168°C/150°C/175°C, as recited in claims 4, 5, and 15 respectively.
Preston discloses an analogous method of forming a fire-retardant wood-based composite (Abstract) wherein the pressing temperature used is based on the desired thickness and density of the product, size and type of the wood particles, moisture content of the particles, and type of binder [0059]. Preston further teaches the pressing temperature is selected so that sufficient temperature to cure the bonding resin is obtained [0059], wherein typical press temperatures vary from 93°C to 290°C [0065]; however, pressing temperatures greater than 230°C are undesirable since they can cause charring of the wood particles [0059].
As the desired thickness and density of the product, size and type of the wood particles, moisture content of the particles, and type of binder used are variables that can be modified by adjusting said pressing temperature, as evidenced by Preston ([0059]), the precise pressing temperature would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed pressing temperature cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the pressing temperature in the method disclosed by the modified Jin to obtain desired balance between thickness and density of the product, size and type of the wood particles, moisture content of the particles, and type of binder (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US2020/0392412 (“Jin et al” hereinafter Jin) and US2015/0151449A1 (Birkeland) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US2007/0001337 (Bales).
Regarding Claim 7, the modified Jin teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the press temperature is equal to or no more than approximately 220°C (Jin discloses the pressing temperature is 204°C [0259]. Since the claimed range overlaps or lies inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. Please see MPEP 2144.05(I).
Jin further teaches the fire-retardant comprises zine borate, but fails to teach wherein the fire-retardant comprises calcium borate.
However, Bales discloses both calcium borate and zine borate ([0009]) are known material as an additive to lignocellulosic (wood), to increase their resistance to insect and fungal attack ([0008]-[0009]).
Jin and Bales are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the same field of manufacturing wooded product. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the fire-retardant comprises zinc borate disclosed by the modified Jin by the fire-retardant comprises calcium borate as taught by Bales because utilizing one known additive material in place of another additive material also suitability in the field of manufacturing wood product is well within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.07.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US2020/0392412 (“Jin et al” hereinafter Jin) and US2015/0151449A1 (Birkeland) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US2020/0247002 (“Merrick et al” hereinafter Merrick).
Regarding Claim 13, the modified Jin discloses the method of claim 1, but fails to explicitly discloses the method comprising the step of applying an overlay to a top surface of the strand mat and/or a bottom surface of the strand mat prior to the step of applying pressure and heat.
However, Merrick teaches the method comprising the step of applying an overlay to a top surface of the strand mat and/or a bottom surface of the strand mat prior to the step of applying pressure and heat (Figure 5 and [0005], one or more layers of an engineered, cellulose or non-cellulose (e.g. paper) based overlay (applied to the surface over, under, or between the fines layer) may also be added).
Jin and Merrick are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the same field of manufacturing improved wood product. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modified the method of the modified Jin such that the it teaches the above discussed limitation as taught by Merrick to improved surface appearance ([0005]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 09/02/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant argues Jin does not disclose or teach the newly added limitations of claim 1. Jin discloses one or more blending steps taking place in one or more blenders. However, Lin, the Applicant seemed to mistype Jin, does not disclose the application of either fire-retardant to the batches of furnish at any point in the production process other in a blender. Lin does disclose that the furnish is blended with additives (112) such as adhesives, see [0158], but this is simply the standard blending of adhesives with the strands in the formation of OSB, and does not encompass a fast-cure adhesive system comprising a 1- component adhesive with a latent catalyst or accelerator.
The Examiner respectfully disagreed. Firstly, the Office is relied upon a secondary reference US2015/0151449A1 (Birkeland), to discloses the newly added limitations of claim 1. Birkeland teaches blending the wood strands with a fast-curing adhesive system comprising a 1-compoennt adhesive with a lateen catalyst or accelerator ([0031], adding adhesives materials including additives such as borax, which is an accelerator). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to recognized that the blending occurs for both portions of the wood strands as taught by the modified Jin to ensure even distribution of the adhesive and accelerator to improve reactivity, water resistance, and strength and enhanced cure of the adhesive ([0031]) through the entire wood strands. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
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 XINWEN (Cindy) YE whose telephone number is (571)272-3010. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 8:30 - 17:00.
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, Susan Leong can be reached at (571) 270-1487. 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.
XINWEN (CINDY) YE
Examiner
Art Unit 1754
/SUSAN D LEONG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1754