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 .
The Applicant’s amendment filed on March 16, 2026 was received. Claims 19, 22 and 24 were amended and claim 25 was newly added.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S.C. code not included in this action can be found in the prior Office action issued March 11, 2025.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 March 16, 2026 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The rejection of claim 24 as indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) is maintained. Applicant’s amendments do nothing to address the issue that the “unit… configured to remove acetylation fluid” has no corresponding structure disclosed in either the claim or the specification. The addition of other functions does not introduce any new structure, and the claim language still clearly invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable over Hirano (US 5,431,868) in view of Barone et al. (EP 2781865) on claims 17-18 are maintained. The rejections are restated below.
Regarding claim 17: Hirano discloses a wood acetylation process in which wood fibers, after being subject to an acetylation process, are washed with water and then oven dried to achieve a predetermined moisture content (col. 7 lines 11-30). Hirano discloses this post-treatment process which inherently requires some manner of liquid distributor for the water washing step but does not explicitly disclose a particular apparatus for performing it.
However, Barone et al. discloses an apparatus for drying pellet-like material which can include wood products (par. 9), the apparatus including an introduction section (2) with an inlet from a hopper (1) and an outlet at a valve (6), and a drying chamber which includes an inlet at the introduction section (2) valve (6), an extracting door (15) which is an outlet, a plurality of conveyor belts (7) for continuously transporting the pellets from the valve (6) to the extracting door (15), a lower duct (11) which is an inlet conduit having an opening at the lower door (8) for introducing gas into the drying chamber (5), an upper duct (11) which forms an outlet conduit having an opening at the upper door (9) for extracting gas from the drying chamber (5), the ducts (11) being connected in a recirculation loop where the lower and upper doors (8, 9) are different from the valve (6) and extracting door (15), and where the loop includes a cooler (13) which has condensing devices (14) in a vessel, a recovery line (16) for extracting condensate and an air flow pumping device (12) which is a recirculation fan (pars. 39-52, figure 2). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use an apparatus like that of Barone et al. to perform the post-treatment process of Hirano, including the washing and drying steps, because Barone et al. teaches that this apparatus eliminates drawbacks resulting from filter or water cost while protecting the product and eliminating any harmful pollutants or contaminants (pars. 15-25).
The limitation “for spraying water” is deemed to be a statement with regard to the intended use and is not further limiting in so far as the structure of the apparatus is concerned. In apparatus claims, a claimed intended use must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. MPEP § 2111.02. In the instant case, any source of water that can wash wood fibers is capable of spraying water.
Regarding claim 18: Hirano and Barone et al. disclose the above apparatus in which the loop includes a cooler (13) which has condensing devices (14) in a vessel, a recovery line (16) for extracting condensate and an air flow pumping device (12) which is a recirculation fan (Barone et al. pars. 46-52, figure 2).
The claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable over Hirano in view of Barone et al. on claim 19 is withdrawn because Applicant amended claim 19 to require the liquid distributor to have one or more nozzles or a moving showerhead.
Claims 19, 22 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hirano in view of Barone et al. and Shen (CN 105953562, attached translation used for citation purposes).
Regarding claim 19: Hirano discloses a wood acetylation process in which wood fibers, after being subject to an acetylation process, are washed with water and then oven dried to achieve a predetermined moisture content (col. 7 lines 11-30). Hirano discloses this post-treatment process which inherently requires some manner of liquid distributor for the water washing step but does not explicitly disclose a particular apparatus for performing it.
However, Barone et al. discloses an apparatus for drying pellet-like material which can include wood products (par. 9), the apparatus including an introduction section (2) with an inlet from a hopper (1) and an outlet at a valve (6), and a drying chamber which includes an inlet at the introduction section (2) valve (6), an extracting door (15) which is an outlet, a plurality of conveyor belts (7) for continuously transporting the pellets from the valve (6) to the extracting door (15), a lower duct (11) which is an inlet conduit having an opening at the lower door (8) for introducing gas into the drying chamber (5), an upper duct (11) which forms an outlet conduit having an opening at the upper door (9) for extracting gas from the drying chamber (5), the ducts (11) being connected in a recirculation loop where the lower and upper doors (8, 9) are different from the valve (6) and extracting door (15), and where the loop includes a cooler (13) which has condensing devices (14) in a vessel, a recovery line (16) for extracting condensate and an air flow pumping device (12) which is a recirculation fan (pars. 39-52, figure 2). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use an apparatus like that of Barone et al. to perform the post-treatment process of Hirano, including the washing and drying steps, because Barone et al. teaches that this apparatus eliminates drawbacks resulting from filter or water cost while protecting the product and eliminating any harmful pollutants or contaminants (pars. 15-25).
Hirano and Barone et al. fail to explicitly disclose nozzles or a showerhead for the washing step. However, Shen discloses a similar wood cleaning mechanism which includes a spray base (8) with a plurality of spray heads (9) which are nozzles forming a showerhead, where the spray heads (9) rotate to form a vortex of sprayed water in order to clean the wood article (19) (pages 3-4, figure 1), such that the spray heads form a moving showerhead. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a rotating spray showerhead as taught by Shen for the washing means of Hirano because Shen teaches that this spray means forms a vortex which better cleans the surface of the wood being washed (page 2).
Regarding claim 22: Hirano, Barone et al. and Shen disclose the above combination in which a rotating showerhead (8) sprays a vortex of water onto the wood to clean it (Shen figure 1).
Regarding claim 24: Hirano discloses that the acetylation device includes a reaction vessel (1) which has a net (5) which can be considered a reaction chamber that holds the wood (10) and downstream of that a heater (4) which can be considered a unit configured to remove acetylation fluid which can operate at temperatures of up to 160 degrees Celsius (col. 5 lines 27-63, figure 1).
Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hirano in view of Barone et al. as applied to claims 17-18 above and further in view of Shen.
Regarding claim 25: Hirano and Barone et al. fail to explicitly disclose that the liquid distributor includes one or more nozzles. However, Shen discloses a similar wood cleaning mechanism which includes a spray base (8) with a plurality of spray heads (9) which are nozzles forming a showerhead, where the spray heads (9) rotate to form a vortex of sprayed water in order to clean the wood article (19) (pages 3-4, figure 1), such that the spray heads form a moving showerhead. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a rotating spray showerhead with multiple nozzles as taught by Shen for the washing means of Hirano because Shen teaches that this spray means forms a vortex which better cleans the surface of the wood being washed (page 2).
Claims 17-18 and 25 are alternatively rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hirano in view of Barone et al. and Shen.
Regarding claim 17: Hirano discloses a wood acetylation process in which wood fibers, after being subject to an acetylation process, are washed with water and then oven dried to achieve a predetermined moisture content (col. 7 lines 11-30). Hirano discloses this post-treatment process which inherently requires some manner of liquid distributor for the water washing step but does not explicitly disclose a particular apparatus for performing it.
However, Barone et al. discloses an apparatus for drying pellet-like material which can include wood products (par. 9), the apparatus including an introduction section (2) with an inlet from a hopper (1) and an outlet at a valve (6), and a drying chamber which includes an inlet at the introduction section (2) valve (6), an extracting door (15) which is an outlet, a plurality of conveyor belts (7) for continuously transporting the pellets from the valve (6) to the extracting door (15), a lower duct (11) which is an inlet conduit having an opening at the lower door (8) for introducing gas into the drying chamber (5), an upper duct (11) which forms an outlet conduit having an opening at the upper door (9) for extracting gas from the drying chamber (5), the ducts (11) being connected in a recirculation loop where the lower and upper doors (8, 9) are different from the valve (6) and extracting door (15), and where the loop includes a cooler (13) which has condensing devices (14) in a vessel, a recovery line (16) for extracting condensate and an air flow pumping device (12) which is a recirculation fan (pars. 39-52, figure 2). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use an apparatus like that of Barone et al. to perform the post-treatment process of Hirano, including the washing and drying steps, because Barone et al. teaches that this apparatus eliminates drawbacks resulting from filter or water cost while protecting the product and eliminating any harmful pollutants or contaminants (pars. 15-25).
Hirano and Barone et al. fail to explicitly any structural element for the washing step. However, Shen discloses a similar wood cleaning mechanism which includes a spray base (8) with a plurality of spray heads (9) which are nozzles forming a showerhead, where the spray heads (9) rotate to form a vortex of sprayed water in order to clean the wood article (19) (pages 3-4, figure 1), such that the spray heads form a moving showerhead. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a rotating spray showerhead as taught by Shen for the washing means of Hirano because Shen teaches that this spray means forms a vortex which better cleans the surface of the wood being washed (page 2).
Regarding claim 18: Hirano and Barone et al. disclose the above apparatus in which the loop includes a cooler (13) which has condensing devices (14) in a vessel, a recovery line (16) for extracting condensate and an air flow pumping device (12) which is a recirculation fan (Barone et al. pars. 46-52, figure 2).
Regarding claim 25: Hirano, Barone et al. and Shen disclose the above combination in which a rotating showerhead (8) having a number of spray heads (9) which are nozzles that spray water onto the wood to clean it (Shen figure 1).
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hirano, Barone et al., and Shen as applied to claims 17-19, 22 and 24-25 above and further in view of Felty, Jr. et al. (US 2012/0160843).
Regarding claim 23: Hirano and Barone et al. teach a flask as a reaction unit and/or chamber for the wood acetylation (Hirano col. 7 lines 11-30) but fail to explicitly disclose a chamber that continuously transports the wood elements from an inlet to an outlet. However, Felty Jr. discloses a similar wood acetylation apparatus which uses a chemical modification reactor (22) having an entrance via an entrance door (28) and an exit via an exit door (29) where the wood is conveyed into the entrance and through the reactor (22) to the exit (par. 60, 68-70, figure 1), where Felty Jr. further teaches that continuous motion through similar reactors during treatment are equivalent to static batch-type processes (par. 106). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a reactor chamber with an inlet, outlet and continuous transport of the wood workpieces as taught by Felty Jr. for the apparatus of Hirano because Felty Jr. teaches that this helps commercialize chemical treatment of wood products in large scale with short cycle times (par. 4, 77-78) and because simple substitution of functional equivalents (static, batch-type processing vs continuous dynamic processing) is not considered to be a patentable advance (MPEP 2143, 2144.06).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed March 16, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant primarily argues that the Examiner has not described exactly how the apparatus of Barone et al. would work with the process of Hirano, that Hirano’s washing process does not inherently require a liquid distributor or that “for spraying water” is intended use, that claim 19 now requires nozzles which is not taught by Hirano or Barone et al., and that the references do not teach the rest of the features from the amended/added claims.
In response:
Regarding the overall combination of Hirano and Barone et al., the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981). In the instant case, Hirano discloses that the treated wood is dried to achieve a predetermined moisture content without specifying an apparatus to do this drying, and Barone et al. is drawn to an improved apparatus for drying wood pellets to a predetermined humidity level. This satisfies the obviousness requirement by teaching the claim limitations as well as motivation to combine- there is no need for the Office to detail specifically how each and every element of the two inventions is to be combined in order to present the prima facie case of obviousness, as it is well within the ability of the skilled artisan to construct such combinations.
Regarding the inherency of a liquid distributor, Applicant is incorrect. A single faucet, spout or aperture as Applicant cites is indeed still a “liquid distributor”, an extremely broad term. Nothing in claim 17 requires any further structure, and as such the limitation “for spraying water” remains intended use, which any generic liquid distributor- even an aperture, bath or even a bucket is capable of performing. Any source of water capable of washing acetylated wood fibers must inherently include a “liquid distributor” and be capable of spraying water. Regardless, claim 17 has been alternatively rejected over Hirano, Barone et al. and Shen as discussed above.
Regarding claim 19 and the other new limitations, Applicant’s arguments are moot because they do not refer to the newly cited Shen reference as well as the other new citations from the existing references, like the portion of Hirano cited to reject claim 24. These new citations do indeed teach all of the claim limitations.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEPHEN A KITT whose telephone number is (571)270-7681. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-5pm.
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, Dah-Wei Yuan can be reached at 571-272-1295. 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.
/S.A.K/
Stephen KittExaminer, Art Unit 1717
4/27/2026
/Dah-Wei D. Yuan/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1717
Prosecution Insights