DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
Applicant's amendment filed 11/21/2025 has been entered. Currently, claims 1-13 and 15 are pending and claim 14 is cancelled.
Specification
The substitute specification filed 11/21/2025 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 3 and 15 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.
In claim 3 and 15, the Examiner does not find support for the limitations of “less than 5% by mass” in the specification as originally filed. There is no support in the specification to claim that the water content was measured “by mass”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chan et al. (WO 2017/123104).
The Examiner notes the presence of the product-by-process limitations in claim 1 of a synthetic wood comprising “compressed and dehydrated” bacterial cellulose and gel. It has been held that “even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. 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.” Please see MPEP 2112 and In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
With regard to claims 1, 2 and 4, Chan et al. disclose a natural cellulose fiberboard, which reads on applicants’ synthetic wood, that comprises microbial cellulose fibers, which is bacterial cellulose, and acacia gum, which is gum Arabic that will have some water therein and reads on applicants’ gel, dehydrated gel and dried gel (pg. 4, lines 5-20). The recycled newspaper fibers read on applicants’ additive (pg. 4, lines 20-21). The microbial cellulose fiber and acacia gum mixture was dried to form the fiberboard and then mechanically pressed, this reads on the compressed and dehydrated bacterial cellulose and gel (pg. 6, lines 20-26).
With regard to claim 3, the microbial cellulose fiber and acacia gum mixture was dried, which will inherently bring the water content to less than 5% as claimed (pg. 6, lines 20-25).
With regard to claim 5, this claim does not require the use of a binder in the synthetic wood, rather it defines what the binder may be when it is used. Given the fact that Chan et al. meets the additive of claim 4, this means the reference also anticipates this claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim 4 and 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chan et al. (WO 2017/123104) in view of Wirz (US 2011/0014425).
Chan et al. teach all of the limitations of claim 1 above; however, they do not specifically teach a colorant in their fiberboard.
Wirz teaches a fiberboard that can include a colorant, which reads on an additive [0008] and [0023].
Since Chan et al. and Wirz are both drawn to fiberboards, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have combined in the colorant of Wirz into the fiberboard of Chan et al. The results of such a combination would have been predictable to one having ordinary skill; further, each of the elements would have performed the same in combination as they had separately. The rationale to add a colorant to color the fiberboard in the desired color depending upon its intended use.
Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kinio et al. (US 2020/0198177).
The Examiner notes the presence of the product-by-process limitations in claim 1 of a synthetic wood comprising “compressed and dehydrated” bacterial cellulose and gel. It has been held that “even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. 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.” Please see MPEP 2112 and In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
With regard to claims 1-6, Kinio et al. teach a wood composite product, which reads on applicants’ synthetic wood, that includes a loose substrate material that is mixed with an aqueous adhesive composition [0087]. The aqueous adhesive composition can comprise one or more biopolymers, water, one or more monomers or oligomers and one or more additives [0031]. The biopolymer may be a polysaccharide such as starch or a microbial cellulose, which is bacterial cellulose, or a proteinaceous material such as gelatin, which will be a gel in the aqueous composition and reads on applicants’ gel and dried gel [0058]-[0062]. An exemplary aqueous adhesive composition of Boards 2, 4 and 6 can include a mixture of waxy corn starch, a potato starch, which reads on applicants’ binder, and a crude glycerol, which reads on applicants’ glycerin or polyol additive [0110] and Tables 1 and 2; however, Kinio et al. does not specifically teach an adhesive composition with all of the materials claimed.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have combined in the bacterial cellulose and gelatin with the other materials of the example of Kinio et al. The results of such a combination would have been predictable; further, each of the elements would have performed the same in combination as they had separately. These are all known equivalent materials for the biopolymer portion of the adhesive composition as taught in Kinio et al. and the combination of these known equivalent materials to form a composition for the same purpose is prima facie obvious, see MPEP 2144.06.
With specific regard to claims 1 and 3, the core layer of the particleboard after being resinated has a moisture content of from 5 to 9 wt% and in one example 7 wt% [0110]-[0111]. This resinated core is then cured in a press at 200-220 C, which reads on the compressed bacterial cellulose and gel [0091]. This will intrinsically dry the product such that the moisture of the core to less than 5% as claimed, which reads on the dehydrated bacterial cellulose and gel.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7-13 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The closest prior art is WO 2017/123104 but the compressing step is done after the drying step and there is no rationale save improper hindsight to have reversed the steps and also to have added a drying step to form a semi-solid mass prior to the compressing step. This would have added extra steps that would have spent extra time and money in manufacture, which would not have made sense to one having ordinary skill. Please note that bacterial cellulose has a specific structure based upon how the cellulose was made, i.e. using bacteria or microbial method.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 11/21/2025, with respect to the objection to the specification, the objections to the claims and the previous 112(b) and (d) rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive. The relevant objection/rejections have been withdrawn.
Applicants’ arguments on page 7 of their Remarks are persuasive that the term “synthetic wood” can be defined by applicants as a patent applicant can be their own lexicographer. Applicants state that they define synthetic wood at [0005] as: “Synthetic wood that includes bacterial cellulose and one or more gels is described”, which means any prior art material that has all of the materials in the body of claim 1 would read on a synthetic wood.
Applicant's arguments filed 11/21/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicants argue on page 7 of their Remarks that Chan et al. do not teach or suggest a synthetic wood that is “compressed and dehydrated” bacterial cellulose and gel.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that Chan et al. do teach these limitations for the reasons noted above.
The Examiner notes that applicants have traversed the rejection based on Kinio et al. on page 8 of their Remarks but that have not specifically pointed out how the rejection is unreasonable or improper, and therefore the Examiner maintains that the rejection is proper and has repeated it above.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 GERARD T HIGGINS whose telephone number is (571)270-3467. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30-6pm (variable one work-at-home day).
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 Ruthkosky can be reached at (571) 272-1291. 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.
/Gerard Higgins/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1785