DETAILED ACTION
This office action follows a reply filed on February 6, 2026. Claims 8, 11 and 17-18 have been amended. Claims 8-9, 11-15 and 17-18 are currently pending and under examination.
All previous rejections are withdrawn, as applicants have limited the viscosity of the resin composition and the inclusion of a sulfonated polymer, which was not previously required by all claims. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is proposed below.
The texts of those sections of Title 35 U.S. Code are not included in this section and can be found in a prior Office action.
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 § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 8 requires the inclusion of from 1-7 wt% of a bio-additive.
Claim 15 limits the amount to greater than 0 to less than 1 wt%.
Therefore, claim 15 does not further limit the subject matter of claim 8, as the range claimed in instant claim 15 is outside of that claimed in instant claim 8.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 8, 11 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Markessini (US 4,886,854) in view of Rashid (US 2020/0171698).
Markessini exemplifies a glue formulation comprising an aqueous urea formaldehyde resin and Sample 1, which is prepared from a condensation product of formaldehyde, thiourea and urea, 5% modified starch, and 10% lignosulfonate (Example 7, Sample No. 1 and Glue Formulation No. 1), where the final glue formulation suggests the inclusion of 0.8 wt% starch and 1.7 wt% lignosulfonate. Sample 1 also includes corn syrup, which can be replaced with additional starch, as these are functional equivalents for component (b). Therefore, modifying Sample No. 1 to include 110 parts modified starch instead of 50 parts modified starch/60 parts syrup is prima facie obvious, and suggests the inclusion of 1.8 wt% starch based on the final glue formulation.
Markessini discloses that the glue formulation is sprayed onto dried wood chips, which are then formed into a mat, where the mat is then introduced into a hot press and boards were pressed (Example 7).
Markessini does not teach the viscosity of the glue, as claimed.
Rashid teaches a binder material which can include a urea-formaldehyde, which is applied to a filler, such as wood chips, teaching that the binder can be combined with the filler by way of spraying onto the filler material, which is particularly suitable when the binder is of a low viscosity, such as 500 cP or less (p. 11-12, [0201]).
Markessini similarly desires a binder adhesive which can be sprayed on wood chips; therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a binder with a viscosity of less than 500 cP, as Rashid teaches that this is a suitable viscosity for binders which are to be sprayed onto wood chips.
Markessini in view of Rashid is prima facie obvious over instant claims 8, 11 and 18.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Markessini (US 4,886,854) in view of Rashid (US 2020/0171698), as applied above to claims 8, 11 and 18, and further in view of RU 2333304. The machine translation of RU ‘304 is cited below.
Markessini in view of Rashid is prima facie obvious over instant claims 8, 11 and 18, as described above and applied herein as such, as Markessini teaches a combination of a urea-formaldehyde resin with starch and lignosulfonate to form a binder which can be sprayed on wood chips, and Rashid teaches an adhesive binder with a viscosity of 500 cP or less is suitable for such.
Markessini teaches that the starch can be a modified starch, but does not teach or suggest cationic starch, as claimed.
RU ‘304 teaches a urea-formaldehyde adhesive for cellulose materials, teaching that the cationic starch as a modifier of the urea-formaldehyde oligomer increases the affinity for the cellulosic material to the presence of a large number of hydroxyl groups and imparting cationic properties to the oligomer molecules, while the surface of the treated cellulosic material has a negative charge. This facilitates the attachment of the oligomer to the surface of the paperboard material.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have used a cationic starch as the starch modifier in Markessini, as RU ‘304 teaches that cationic starch increases the affinity of the urea-formaldehyde oligomer for the cellulosic material, where adhesion of the urea-formaldehyde to a cellulosic substrate is similarly desired in Markessini.
Markessini in view of Rashid and further in view of RU ‘304 is prima facie obvious over instant claim 9.
Claims 12-14 and 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Markessini (US 4,886,854) in view of Rashid (US 2020/0171698), as applied above to claims 8, 11 and 18, and further in view of Williams and Spencer (US 3,282,865).
Markessini in view of Rashid is prima facie obvious over instant claims 8, 11 and 18, as described above and applied herein as such, as Markessini teaches a combination of a urea-formaldehyde resin with starch and lignosulfonate to form a binder which can be sprayed on wood chips, and Rashid teaches an adhesive binder with a viscosity of 500 cP or less is suitable for such.
Markessini teaches that melamine can be included, but does not teach the inclusion of the claimed methylated melamine formaldehyde crosslinker.
Williams teaches a hydrolytically stable urea-formaldehyde resin which is applied to wood particles to form particleboards, teaching that by adding a methoxylated methylmelamine crosslinking agent, bond strength can be improved, and is particularly useful in the manufacture of particleboard (col. 4, l. 58 to col. 5, l. 8).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have added a methoxylated methylmelamine crosslinking agent to the urea-formaldehyde resin of Markessini, as Markessini teaches preparing particleboard and Williams teaches that the addition of a methoxylated methyl melamine crosslinking agent increases the bond strength in particleboards.
Williams teaches that the crosslinking agent includes hexamethoxymethylmelamine, but does not teach the molar ratio of formaldehyde:melamine or that of methyl groups:melamine, as claimed.
Spencer teaches that hexamethylolmelamine is prepared by procedures well known in the art and are generally based upon the reaction of melamine with formaldehyde, using an excess of formaldehyde over the theoretical ratio required for complete methylolation of the melamine. Thereafter, the hexamethylol compound is converted to the hexamethyl ether derivative by reaction with excess methyl alcohol. The resulting mixture is predominantly hexamethyoxymethylmelamine and contains from about 1:5.5:5.5 to 1:6:6 mols on average of melamine, formaldehyde and methanol, respectfully.
Therefore, the hexamethoxymethylmelamine of Williams meets the claimed methylated melamine formaldehyde crosslinker, as taught by Spencer.
Markessini in view of Rashid and further in view of Williams and Spencer is prima facie obvious over instant claims 12-14.
As to claim 17, Williams teaches the inclusion of up to 10 parts of the crosslinking agent based on 100 parts by weight of the urea-formaldehyde resin (col. 14, ll. 50-58). The addition of 10 phr crosslinking agent in Example 7, Sample No. 1 suggests the inclusion of 20 parts crosslinking agent (200 parts combined from formaldehyde, thiourea and urea), or 2 wt% based on the resin composition. The amount of crosslinking agent overlaps with the claimed range of 0.05-20 wt%, and it has been held that overlapping ranges are sufficient to establish prima facie obviousness. See MPEP 2144.05.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have selected from the overlapping portion of the range taught by the reference because overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 BRIEANN R JOHNSTON whose telephone number is (571)270-7344. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:00 AM - 4:00 PM EST.
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, Randy Gulakowski can be reached at (571)272-1302. 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.
/Brieann R Johnston/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1766