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 Amendment
Applicant filed a response, amended claim 1, and added new claim 17-20 on 07/01/2025.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments are primarily drawn to the amended claims. The revised rejection addresses the amendments.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “cooling unit” in claim 4 and 13.
Accordingly, “cooling unit” is interpreted as a liquid flow convection cooler, a thermoelectric cooler, and passive heat exchanger fins and equivalents thereof [0033].
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 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 nonobviousness.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-9, 11, and 14-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Via (PG-PUB 2017/0266930) in view of Buchholzer (WO2000007785, machine translation relied upon for citations).
Regarding claim 1, Via teaches a method for applying an adhesive resin in manufacturing an engineered wood product comprising:
pre-heating an adhesive resin to a pre-application temperature before entry into an adhesive applier [0070];
maintaining said adhesive resin at said pre-application temperature for a controlled period of time [0070]; and
applying said adhesive resin on wood particles to form an engineered wood product [0064], [0071], [0073], [0076].
Via does not explicitly teach maintaining said adhesive resin at said pre-application temperature to improve cross-linking ability of said adhesive resin at an end of the period of time.
However, the fact that applicant has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious (MPEP 2145(II)).
Via does not teach said adhesive resin enters said adhesive applier at a heated temperature above ambient temperature.
Buchholzer teaches a method for manufacturing medium density fiber panels comprising a step of spraying a binder using nozzles, wherein the binder can be brought to room temperature or heated to a temperature of below 100°C, preferably 50 to 75°C, in order to bring as much heat energy as possible into the fiber mat to be spread (Page 2-3, ln 80-90). Buchholzer teaches the temperature of the binder should be at the temperature range of 50 to 70°C to avoid pre-curing (Page 4, ln 134-143).
Both Via and Buchholzer are drawn to the same field of endeavor pertaining to applying a binder for manufacturing engineering wood products. Via does not explicitly teach whether the binder is supplied to the applier in a heated or non-heated state, prompting one of ordinary skill in the art to look elsewhere in the art. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the process of Via with a step of supplying the binder in a heated state to the adhesive applier, a known suitable technique for supplying binder without causing pre-curing as taught by Buchholzer, to yield the predictable result of spraying prepared binder to the fiber materials.
Regarding claim 2, Via in view of Buchholzer teaches the process as applied to claim 1, wherein maintaining said adhesive resin at said pre-application temperature improves pre-application chemical properties compared to chemical properties of said adhesive resin at a beginning of said controlled period of time because a desired level of viscosity and emulsification is obtained through the heating (Via, [0070]).
Regarding claim 4, Via in view of Buchholzer teaches the process as applied to claim 1.
Via in view of Buchholzer as modified does not teach a cooling unit located at an exit end of said adhesive applier to decrease said pre-application temperature to an application temperature.
Buchholzer teaches a cooling unit located at an exit end of said adhesive applier to ensure that the binder applied is at a temperature range of about 50 to 70°C in order to avoid-precuring (Page 4, ln 134-141).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to improve the process of Via in view of Buchholzer with a cooling unit located at an exit end of the adhesive applier of Via in view of Buchholzer to ensure the binder sprayed is within the desired temperature range to avoid pre-curing as taught by Buchholzer and, therefore, within appropriate viscosity levels to ensure proper spraying as suggested by Via [0066].
Regarding claim 5, Via in view of Buchholzer teaches the process as applied to claim 1, wherein said adhesive resin comprises a formaldehyde polymer (Via, [0050] and [0077]).
Regarding claim 6, Via in view of Buchholzer teaches the process as applied to claim 1, said adhesive resin comprises a resin prepared from methylene diphenyl di-isocyanate (Via, [0050] and [0077]).
Regarding claim 7, Via in view of Buchholzer teaches the process as applied to claim 1, said adhesive resin comprises phenol formaldehyde (PF) or urea formaldehyde (UF) (Via, [0050], [0063], and [0077]).
Regarding claim 8, Via in view of Buchholzer teaches the process as applied to claim 1, wherein said adhesive applier comprises a spray nozzle (Via, [0064] and [0069]).
Regarding claim 9, Via in view of Buchholzer teaches the process as applied to claim 1, wherein said adhesive applier is performed by rolling and would inherently require a roller (Via, [0064] and [0069]).
Regarding claim 11, Via in view of Buchholzer teaches the process as applied to claim 1, wherein comprising heating or cooling said adhesive resin through more than one cycle of heating or cooling because of the pre-heating of the adhesive, the cease of heating during the application, and heating of the adhesive during pressing with the mat (Via, [0069]-[0070], and claim 9).
Regarding claim 14, Via in view of Buchholzer teaches the process as applied to claim 1, wherein said pre-application temperature is in a range of 25-90°C (Via, [0070]).
In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05).
Regarding claim 15, Via in view of Buchholzer teaches the process as applied to claim 1, wherein a pre-application viscosity of said adhesive resin is less than about 1000 cp, or preferably in a range of 250-750 cp (Via, [0069]- [0070]).
In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05).
Regarding claim 16, Via in view of Buchholzer teaches the process as applied to claim 1, wherein said adhesive resin is maintained at said pre-application temperature for 0.1 minutes to about 20 minutes (Via, [0070]).
Via in view of Buchholzer does not explicitly teach said adhesive resin is maintained at said pre-application temperature from more than 20 minutes up to 45 minutes.
However, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. (MPEP 2144.05). Prior art temperature of about 20 minutes with close to more than 20 minutes. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized maintain said pre-application temperature to more than 20 minutes (e.g., 20 minutes and a few seconds) would not present any new or unexpected results compared to maintaining said pre-application temperature to 20 minutes, as the viscosity of the resin of Via would not be significantly different over a brief extended period.
Regarding claim 17, Via in view of Buchholzer teaches the process as applied to claim 1, wherein said adhesive resin is maintained at said pre-application temperature for 0.1 minutes to about 20 minutes (Via, [0070]).
Via in view of Buchholzer does not explicitly teach said adhesive resin is maintained at said pre-application temperature from more than 20 minutes up to 60 minutes.
However, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. (MPEP 2144.05). Prior art temperature of about 20 minutes with close to more than 20 minutes. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized maintain said pre-application temperature to more than 20 minutes (e.g., 20 minutes and a few seconds) would not present any new or unexpected results compared to maintaining said pre-application temperature to 20 minutes, as the viscosity of the resin of Via would not be significantly different over a brief extended period.
Regarding claim 18, Via in view of Buchholzer teaches the process as applied to claim 1, wherein said adhesive resin is maintained at said pre-application temperature for 0.1 minutes to about 20 minutes (Via, [0070]).
Via in view of Buchholzer does not explicitly teach said adhesive resin is maintained at said pre-application temperature from more than 20 minutes up to 120 minutes.
However, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. (MPEP 2144.05). Prior art temperature of about 20 minutes with close to more than 20 minutes. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized maintain said pre-application temperature to more than 20 minutes (e.g., 20 minutes and a few seconds) would not present any new or unexpected results compared to maintaining said pre-application temperature to 20 minutes, as the viscosity of the resin of Via would not be significantly different over a brief extended period.
Regarding claim 19, Via in view of Buchholzer teaches the process as applied to claim 2, wherein said chemical properties comprise viscosity properties (Via, [0070]).
Regarding claim 20, Via teaches a method for applying an adhesive resin in manufacturing an engineered wood product comprising:
pre-heating an adhesive resin to a pre-application temperature before entry into an adhesive applier [0070];
maintaining said adhesive resin at said pre-application temperature for a controlled period of time [0070]; and
applying said adhesive resin on wood particles to form an engineered wood product [0064], [0071], [0073], [0076].
Via does not explicitly teach maintaining said adhesive resin at said pre-application temperature to improve cross-linking ability of said adhesive resin at an end of the period of time.
However, the fact that applicant has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious (MPEP 2145(II)).
Via does not teach said adhesive resin enters said adhesive applier at a heated temperature above ambient temperature.
Buchholzer teaches a method for manufacturing medium density fiber panels comprising a step of spraying a binder using nozzles, wherein the binder can be brought to room temperature or heated to a temperature of below 100°C, preferably 50 to 75°C, in order to bring as much heat energy as possible into the fiber mat to be spread (Page 2-3, ln 80-90). Buchholzer teaches the temperature of the binder should be at the temperature range of 50 to 70°C to avoid pre-curing (Page 4, ln 134-143).
Both Via and Buchholzer are drawn to the same field of endeavor pertaining to applying a binder for manufacturing engineering wood products. Via does not explicitly teach whether the binder is supplied to the applier in a heated or non-heated state, prompting one of ordinary skill in the art to look elsewhere in the art. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the process of Via with a step of supplying the binder in a heated state to the adhesive applier, a known suitable technique for supplying binder without causing pre-curing as taught by Buchholzer, to yield the predictable result of spraying prepared binder to the fiber materials.
Claim 3 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Via (PG-PUB 2017/0266930) in view of Buchholzer (WO2000007785, machine translation relied upon for citations), as applied to claim 1, in further view of Kim KR102144991, machine translation relied upon for citations) and Miller (US 7,803,296).
Regarding claim 3, Via in view of Buchholzer teaches the process as applied to claim 1. Via teaches the binder should have a desirable viscosity to permit application [0069], and the binder can be heated to lower the viscosity to an appropriate level [0070].
Via in view of Buchholzer does not teach one or more viscosity sensors are placed in a vicinity of a heater and said adhesive applier, wherein said one or more viscosity sensors operating in a control loop with a controller, wherein said controller is operatively coupled to said heater and said adhesive applier to control heating of said adhesive resin.
Kim teaches an apparatus for manufacturing composite wood deck, comprising a mixer with a temperature sensor for measuring the internal temperature of the mixing chamber and a control device [0074]. Kim teaches the temperature sensor is installed inside of the mixing chamber to control the melting and viscosity of the binder and adjusting the temperature of mixing chamber [0079]-[0080].
Miller teaches a system for manufacturing a gypsum slurry, comprising a plurality of sensors. Miller teaches the sensors can measure one or more physical properties of the slurry, including the temperature or viscosity (Col 16, ln 4-15). Miller teaches changing variables can include ambient temperature, slurry temperature, raw material fluctuations, etc., can affect the slurry viscosity (Col 15, ln 45-60). Miller teaches properties such as the viscosity of the slurry can be maintained in a desired range without the need for stopping the continuous manufacturing process through the use of the sensors (Col 23, ln 5-26).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to improve the process of Via with a temperature sensor and controller as taught by Kim to monitor the viscosity of the adhesive mixture in a mixer and adjust the temperature accordingly to obtain the desirable viscosity range, as desired by Via. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to further improve the process of Via in view of Kim with a viscosity sensor in the mixer and coupled to the heater, an additional sensor as taught by Miller to directly measure and monitor viscosity of the mixture to adjust the parameters of the mixture reaction such that the desirable viscosity range is obtained.
Regarding claim 13, Via in view of Buchholzer teaches the process as applied to claim 4. Via teaches the binder should have a desirable viscosity to permit application [0069], and the binder can be heated to lower the viscosity to an appropriate level [0070].
Via in view of Buchholzer does not teach one or more viscosity sensors are placed in a vicinity of a heater and said adhesive applier, wherein said one or more viscosity sensors operating in a control loop with a controller, wherein said controller is operatively coupled to said heater and said adhesive applier to control heating of said adhesive resin.
Kim teaches an apparatus for manufacturing composite wood deck, comprising a mixer with a temperature sensor for measuring the internal temperature of the mixing chamber and a control device [0074]. Kim teaches the temperature sensor is installed inside of the mixing chamber to control the melting and viscosity of the binder and adjusting the temperature of mixing chamber [0079]-[0080].
Miller teaches a system for manufacturing a gypsum slurry, comprising a plurality of sensors. Miller teaches the sensors can measure one or more physical properties of the slurry, including the temperature or viscosity (Col 16, ln 4-15). Miller teaches changing variables can include ambient temperature, slurry temperature, raw material fluctuations, etc., can affect the slurry viscosity (Col 15, ln 45-60). Miller teaches properties such as the viscosity of the slurry can be maintained in a desired range without the need for stopping the continuous manufacturing process through the use of the sensors (Col 23, ln 5-26).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to improve the process of Via with a temperature sensor and controller as taught by Kim to monitor the viscosity of the adhesive mixture in a mixer and adjust the temperature accordingly to obtain the desirable viscosity range, as desired by Via. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to further improve the process of Via in view of Kim with a viscosity sensor in the mixer and coupled to the heater, an additional sensor as taught by Miller to directly measure and monitor viscosity of the mixture to adjust the parameters of the mixture reaction such that the desirable viscosity range is obtained.
Claim 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Via (PG-PUB 2017/0266930) in view of Buchholzer (WO2000007785, machine translation relied upon for citations), as applied to claim 1, in further view of Kumar (PG-PUB 2017/0225355).
Regarding claim 10, Via in view of Buchholzer teaches the process as applied to claim 1, wherein said adhesive applier is performed by spraying, rolling, submerging, pouring, extruding, gravity application, etc. (Via, [0064] and [0069]).
Via in view of Buchholzer does not explicitly teach said adhesive applier comprises an atomizer.
Kumar teaches a process of manufacturing engineering wood products [0015], comprising applying a binder to fiber particles [0067], [0071]-[0073], wherein the application can be performed through atomizing [0072].
Via and Kumar are both drawn to applying an adhesive to lignocellulosic particles for manufacturing engineering wood products. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to modify the process of Via with the known suitable application technique of atomizing as taught by Kumar, to yield the predictable result of applying adhesive binder to fibrous materials for manufacturing engineered wood products.
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 HANA C PAGE whose telephone number is (571)272-1578. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9:00-5:30.
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, Phillip Tucker can be reached on 5712721095. 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.
/HANA C PAGE/Examiner, Art Unit 1745
/MICHAEL A TOLIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1745
Prosecution Insights