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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 9/15/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The arguments are regarding amendments to the claim set, and will be addressed in the Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 section.
The objections to claims 1, 2 & 6 have been corrected, and are withdrawn.
Amended claim 11 still has an objection regarding its proper dependency.
The amendments to claims 1, 2, 6, 8 & 11, and the cancellation of claims 3 & 15-16, are acknowledged.
Claim Objections
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities: typographical error.
Claim 11 is improperly amended to be dependent to itself. However, it is understood by the Examiner that claim 11 should be dependent to claim 10, as claim 10 is the only prior claim citing a WRB layer.
For the sake of compact prosecution, claim 11 will be examined as being dependent to claim 10.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 2 and 5 are 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.
The claim 2 element “adding additional zinc borate to the top layer lignocellulosic strands sufficient to attain the first elevated concentration of zinc borate” does not limit the claim scope from independent claim 1, as claim 1 teaches the same element of “top layer lignocellulosic strands treated with a first elevated concentration of zinc borate”.
Applicant may cancel the claim, amend the claim to place the claim in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim 5 is rejected as it is dependent to claim 2.
For the sake of compact prosecution, claims 2 and 5 will be examined on their merits.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or non-obviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-2 & 4-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Edwall (US20200198175A1), in view of Han (“Performance of Zinc-Borate-Treated Oriented Structural Straw Board Against Mold Fungi, Decay Fungi, and Termites – A Preliminary Trial”). Claim elements are presented in italics.
1. A method for producing a manufactured wood product with surface protection against fungal and insect attack, comprising: blending all of a plurality of lignocellulosic strands with a base concentration of zinc borate, said plurality of lignocellulosic strands being divided into bottom, core and top layer lignocellulosic strands; forming, on a production line, a bottom layer of a manufactured wood mat with bottom layer lignocellulosic strands, wherein the bottom layer has at least a base concentration of zinc borate; forming, on the production line, a core layer of the manufactured wood mat with core layer lignocellulosic strands, wherein the core layer has at least a base concentration of zinc borate; forming, on the production line, a top layer of the manufactured wood mat with top layer lignocellulosic strands treated with a first elevated concentration of zinc borate above the base concentration, wherein the first elevated concentration is at least 2.5% (m/m); and applying heat and pressure to the manufactured wood mat to form a manufactured wood product.
With respect to claim 1, the prior art of Edwall teaches a method for producing a manufactured wood product [0022-0027], comprising: blending all of a plurality of lignocellulosic strands with a base concentration of zinc borate within a hollow blending cylinder (Fig. 1, item 10) comprising spray applicators (Fig. 1, item 14; [0012-0013, 0021]), wherein the spray applicators can discharge the zinc borate additive into the blended strands [0013, 0024].
In the next step, Edwall teaches forming a manufactured wood mat [0025] on a production line, by splitting the plurality of blended and treated lignocellulosic strands into a bottom ply, or layer, with bottom layer lignocellulosic strands [0025], a core layer with core layer lignocellulosic strands [0025], and a top layer with top layer lignocellulosic strands [0025]. Edwall teaches each mat layer is oriented [0025].
Edwall does not explicitly teach the manufactured wood mat having surface protection against fungal and insect attack. Edwall does teach treating the wood strands with additives in the blending drum [0013], wherein the additives can comprise resin, wax, and a ‘preservative’ zinc borate [0013, 0021]. Edwall is silent on the resulting weight % of zinc borate in the mat layers, and on the benefits of zinc borate as a preservative.
However, in the same field of art, the prior art of Han teaches a similar oriented mat forming process wherein zinc borate acts to provide termite [Table 3] and fungal decay [Table 1] resistance when applied at levels of 1.5 wt% or greater to OSB [P. 2987, ¶ 3] and OSSB [P. 2993, Conclusions], and showing improved resistance to mold at levels up to 3.0% [Table 1], wherein OSB and OSSB are comparable in physical and mechanical properties at comparable densities [P. 2986, Intro. ¶ 1].
It would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the time of filing to apply the known technique of adding zinc borate to any effective tested level from 1.5% to 3.0%, using at least at the minimum effective value of 1.5 wt%, along with other additives (e.g. - resin, wax [P. 2988, ¶ 1]) from the wood product manufacturing process taught by Han, into the ready-for-improvement wood product manufacturing process taught by Edwall, which sprays zinc borate at undisclosed wt% in the blending drum to provide a base concentration of zinc borate to the strands making up the three mat layers. By adding zinc borate to 1.5 wt% of the strand blending process of Edwall, in view of Han, this modification would predictably result in improvement over the process of Edwall, by defining a zinc borate base concentration of 1.5 wt% for each mat layer to improve resistance against fungal and termite attack.
Edwall does not explicitly teach treating the top layer with an increased ‘first’ concentration of zinc borate.
Edwall does teach that any of the mat layers could be covered with wood particles comprising additional zinc borate as the mat is formed [0026], which would increase the wt% for the applicable layer(s).
Han supports this by teaching as zinc borate levels are increased from 0 to 3.0 wt%, each tested increasing level provides further protection from fungal and termite attack [Tables 1 & 3]. Han also teaches mold resistance could also be accomplished by spray application of moldicides onto a board surface layer [P. 2991, ¶ 1].
Because top and bottom layers may be exposed to the environment and more vulnerable to fungal and insect attack (while the core layer is protected by the outer layers), it would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the time of filing to apply the Han teaching of an outer surface fungicide spraying technique to increase zinc borate for optimal fungal and insect attack protection on those outer layers that would be first reached by the fungi and insects.
These teachings of Edwall, in view of Han, prima facie obviously could have led a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the time of filing to increase the concentration of zinc borate in the top and bottom mat layers (which could be exposed outer product layers when finished) to an increased ‘first’ concentration of zinc borate at 3.0%, as it is the highest tested value from Han, showing the highest level of mold resistance and without negative effects. See MPEP 2143(I)(G).
Lastly, Edwall teaches applying heat and pressure, by means of a high temperature press, to consolidate the manufactured layered wood mat to form a manufactured board or panel wood product [0027].
2. The method of claim 1, further comprising the steps of: adding additional zinc borate to the top layer lignocellulosic strands sufficient to attain the first elevated concentration of zinc borate.
With respect to claim 2, as set forth in the rejection of claim 1, Edwall, in view of Han, teaches additional zinc borate could be added to the top layer lignocellulosic strands sufficient to attain the first elevated concentration of zinc borate of 3.0 wt%.
4. The method of claim 1, wherein the first elevated concentration is greater than 2.0% (m/m).
With respect to claim 4, as set forth in the rejection of claim 1, Edwall, in view of Han, teaches zinc borate levels applied to top and bottom layer strands set to 3.0 wt% to provide termite and fungal decay resistance.
5. The method of claim 2, further comprising the step of adding additional zinc borate to the bottom layer lignocellulosic strands sufficient to attain a second elevated concentration of zinc borate.
With respect to claim 5, as set forth in the rejection of claim 2, Edwall, in view of Han, teaches adding additional zinc borate, above the base concentration of 1.5 wt%, to the top and bottom layer strands to 3.0 wt% to provide increased termite and fungal decay resistance.
6. The method of claim 1, wherein the bottom layer lignocellulosic strands are treated with a second elevated concentration of zinc borate above the base concentration.
With respect to claim 6, as set forth in the rejection of claim 1, Edwall, in view of Han, teaches adding additional zinc borate, above the base concentration of 1.5 wt%, to the top and bottom layer strands to 3.0 wt% to provide increased termite and fungal decay resistance.
7. The method of claim 6, wherein the second elevated concentration of zinc borate is equal to the first elevated concentration.
With respect to claim 7, as set forth in the rejection of claim 6, Edwall, in view of Han, teaches zinc borate levels applied to top and bottom layer strands set to 3.0 wt% to provide termite and fungal decay resistance.
8. The method of claim 1, wherein the core layer lignocellulosic strands are treated with a third concentration of zinc borate above the base concentration.
With respect to claim 8, as set forth in the rejection of claim 1, Edwall, in view of Han, teaches zinc borate levels applied to the core layer strands at the base concentration of 1.5 wt%.
Edwall, in view of Han, is silent on the core layer strands at a ‘third’ concentration above the base concentration of 1.5 wt%.
However, as set forth in the rejection of claim 1, Han teaches the base zinc borate concentration of 1.5 wt% provides the minimum effective protection against fungal and insect attack, with the protection increasing as zinc borate levels increased through the maximum tested level of 3.0 wt%.
If the manufactured wood product of Edwall, in view of Han, were used in applications with higher risk of losing portions of the top and bottom layers by fungal and insect attack, or by other risks including mechanical damage, exposing the core layer, there would be an increased risk of fungal and insect attack to the core layer. In these circumstances, one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to use manufactured wood products having higher zinc borate levels for increased protection.
The core layer would prima facie obviously not require a concentration as high as the surrounding top and bottom layers, which would face attacks before the core was reached.
These motivations, along with the teachings of Edwall, in view of Han, prima facie obviously could have led a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the time of filing to increase the concentration of zinc borate in the core mat layer to an increased ‘third’ concentration above the base zinc borate concentration of 1.5 wt%, such as to the increased concentration of 2.0% tested by Han [P. 2991 & 2993], for improved mold resistance over the base concentration.
9. The method of claim 8, wherein the third concentration of zinc borate is less than the first concentration of zinc borate.
With respect to claim 9, as set forth in the rejection of claim 8, dependent to claim 1, Edwall, in view of Han, teaches zinc borate levels applied to core layer strands at 2.0 wt% and top and bottom layer strands set to 3.0 wt% to provide termite and fungal decay resistance.
Claims 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Edwall (US20200198175A1), in view of Han (“Performance of Zinc-Borate-Treated Oriented Structural Straw Board Against Mold Fungi, Decay Fungi, and Termites – A Preliminary Trial”), as set forth above in the rejection of claim 1, and further in view of Thomas (US20080251182A1). Claim elements are presented in italics.
10. The method of claim 1, further comprising the steps of: prior to the step of applying heat and pressure, applying a WRB layer to a top surface of the manufactured wood mat; wherein the manufactured wood product comprises a panel with integrated WRB.
With respect to claim 10, as set forth in the rejection of claim 1, Edwall, in view of Han, teaches the steps of: blending the bottom, core, and top lignocellulosic strands together with a base concentration of zinc borate; and applying heat and pressure, by means of a high temperature press, to consolidate the manufactured wood mat to form a manufactured wood product.
Edwall, in view of Han, is silent on, prior to the step of applying heat and pressure, applying a WRB layer to a top surface of the manufactured wood mat; wherein the manufactured wood product comprises a panel with an integrated (WRB).
However, the prior art of Thomas teaches applying a resinated paper [0054] WRB layer to a top surface of the manufactured wood mat using a resin [0055, 0058]; wherein the manufactured wood product comprises a panel with an integrated water-resistant barrier (WRB) [0055], prior to the step of applying heat and pressure [0063-0068].
It would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the time of filing to use the known technique of applying a resinated paper [0054] WRB layer to a top surface of the an uncured and unconsolidated OSB, taught by Thomas, to improve the similar OSB manufacturing process, taught by Edwall, in view of Han, in the same way – improving the water-resistant properties of the wood product. This modified process of Edwall, in view of Han and Thomas, requires the step of applying heat and pressure after the laying of the resinated paper, and predictably results in an improved product by integration of resinated paper water-resistant barrier layer heated and press-bonded on the top surface of OSB, that was otherwise manufactured from the Edwall, in view of Han, process from the rejection of claim 1.
11. The method of claim 10, wherein the WRB layer comprises a resin-impregnated paper overlay.
With respect to claim 11, as set forth in the rejection of claim 10, Edwall, in view of Han and Thomas teaches the WRB layer comprises a resin-impregnated paper overlay.
Claims 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Edwall (US20200198175A1), in view of Han (“Performance of Zinc-Borate-Treated Oriented Structural Straw Board Against Mold Fungi, Decay Fungi, and Termites – A Preliminary Trial”), as set forth above in the rejection of claim 1, and further in view of Hejna (US7378044B1). Claim elements are presented in italics.
12. The method of claim 1, further comprising the step of affixing a radiant barrier layer to a surface of the manufactured wood product.
With respect to claim 12, as set forth in the rejection of claim 1, Edwall, in view of Han, teaches the steps of: blending the bottom, core, and top lignocellulosic strands together with a base concentration of zinc borate; and applying heat and pressure, by means of a high temperature press, to consolidate the manufactured wood mat to form a manufactured wood product.
Edwall, in view of Han, is silent on the step of affixing a radiant barrier layer to a surface of the manufactured wood product.
However, the prior art of Hejna teaches the process of attaching a radiant barrier layer to OSB to a top and/or bottom surface [Col. 10, lines 29-32] of the manufactured wood product using a ‘hot press’ or a ‘cold press’ method [Col. 3, line 58 – Col. 4, line 12].
It would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the time of filing to use the known technique of a bonding a radiant barrier layer to the top or bottom surface of manufactured OSB, taught by Hejna, to improve the similar OSB manufacturing process, taught by Edwall, in view of Han, in the same way. This modified process of Edwall, in view of Han and Hejna, results in an insulating radiant-barrier layer press-bonded to the manufactured OSB from the Edwall, in view of Han process to improve the insulating properties of the OSB product.
13. The method of claim 1, further comprising the step of affixing an insulation layer to a surface of the manufactured wood product.
With respect to claim 13, as set forth in the rejection of claim 12, Edwall, in view of Han and Hejna, teaches press-bonding an insulating radiant-barrier layer to the manufactured OSB. Hejna teaches the radiant barrier layer is an insulating layer, as it is a foil layer [Col. 3, lines 7-13] that reflects away a substantial amount of radiant energy [Col. 3, lines 58-62] that would typically be absorbed and retained by an OSB [Col. 1, lines 26-31].
Claims 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Edwall (US20200198175A1), in view of Han (“Performance of Zinc-Borate-Treated Oriented Structural Straw Board Against Mold Fungi, Decay Fungi, and Termites – A Preliminary Trial”) and Thomas (US20080251182A1), as set forth above in the rejection of claim 10, and further in view of Hejna (US7378044B1). Claim elements are presented in italics.
14. The method of claim 10, further comprising the step of affixing an insulation layer or a radiant barrier layer to a bottom surface of the manufactured wood product.
With respect to claim 14, as set forth in the rejection of claim 10, Edwall, in view of Han and Thomas, teaches integration of resinated paper water-resistant barrier layer heated and press-bonded on the top surface of OSB, that was otherwise manufactured from the Edwall, in view of Han, process from the rejection of claim 1.
Edwall, in view of Han and Thomas, is silent on the step of affixing an insulation layer or a radiant barrier layer to a bottom surface of the manufactured wood product.
However, the prior art of Hejna teaches the process of attaching a radiant barrier layer to OSB to a top and/or bottom surface [Col. 10, lines 29-32] of the manufactured wood product using a ‘hot press’ or a ‘cold press’ method [Col. 3, line 58 – Col. 4, line 12]. Hejna teaches the radiant barrier layer is an insulating layer, as it is a foil layer [Col. 3, lines 7-13] that reflects away a substantial amount of radiant energy [Col. 3, lines 58-62].
It would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the time of filing to use the known technique of a bonding a radiant barrier layer to the bottom surface of manufactured OSB, taught by Hejna, to improve the similar OSB manufacturing process, taught by Edwall, in view of Han and Thomas, comprising a WRB on the top surface, in the same way by adding an insulating property.
This modified process of Edwall, in view of Han, Thomas, and Hejna, would require the application of the WRB to the top surface of the OSB, and the radiant-barrier layer to the bottom surface of the OSB, prior to heat pressing, which would prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art. After heating and press-bonding, this modified process predictably would result in an insulating radiant-barrier layer press-bonded to the bottom surface of a manufactured OSB comprising a WRB press-bonded to the top surface.
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 extension fee 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 GREGORY C GROSSO whose telephone number is (571)270-1363. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8AM - 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, Abbas Rashid can be reached on 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
GREGORY C. GROSSO
Examiner
Art Unit 1748
/GREGORY C. GROSSO/Examiner, Art Unit 1748
/S. BEHROOZ GHORISHI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1748