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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Group I, claim 1-12, in the reply filed on 27 September 2025 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Claim Objections
Claims 2 and 4 are objected to because of the following informalities. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claim 2, steps a) to e) should not begin with a capital letter because claims are generally written in the form of a sentence. See MPEP 608.01(m).
Regarding claim 4, steps f) to q) should not begin with a capital letter because claims are generally written in the form of a sentence. See MPEP 608.01(m).
Regarding claim 4, the claim must end with a period. See MPEP 608.01(m).
Applicant is advised that should claim 8 be found allowable, claim 9 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1, the preamble recites a method of making a construction board, the construction board having at least one natural-based fiber portion, the at least one layer being comprised of a starting material mad from a raw material obtained from at least partially preformed construction board. However, the body of claim 1 does not recite or clearly indicate forming a construction board with these limitations. Accordingly, it is unclear if claim 1 requires forming a construction board having the above noted limitations.
Regarding claim 1, the preamble recites a method, the method having at least one forming process portion and an auxiliary process portion. However, the body of the claim does not recite any correspondence between the recited steps and the at least one forming process portion or the auxiliary process portion. Additionally, there is no recitation in the body of the claim of performing either of these process portions. While there is a limitation of “for use in at least the forming process portion” at lines 16-17, this is not a positive step of performing the at least one forming process portion. Accordingly, it is unclear if claim 1 requires performing the at least one forming process portion or the auxiliary process portion.
Regarding claim 1, line 12, while “the action” might be interpreted to have implicit antecedent basis from the recitation of a pressure shock wave, this term is not previously recited. Accordingly, “the action” might be interpreted to have insufficient antecedent basis. The examiner suggests --an [[the]] action-- to avoid any potential issue of insufficient antecedent basis for this term.
Regarding claim 1, line 7 recites at least one forming process portion. It is unclear which of the at least one forming process portion is being referenced by “the forming process portion” in lines 16-17, and also in line 23.
Regarding claim 1, line 14 recites at least one first component. It is unclear which of the at least one first component is being referenced by “the first component” in line 20.
Regarding claim 1, line 21, it is not clear what is meant by “proportional supply” or “at least proportional supply”. A proportion is a relationship between two quantities. However, there is no clear indication of the quantities used to determine this proportion. The phrase “at least” also does not make sense with respect to “proportional supply”, and it is entirely unclear how proportional supply is modified by “at least”. Additionally it is unclear if this language requires a positive step of supplying.
Regarding claim 1, lines 21-22, at least one first component and a second component are previously recited. It is unclear which components are being referenced by “the at least one component”.
Regarding claim 1, lines 15-17 recite at least one of the components being suitable as the starting material for use in at least the forming process portion. Lines 21-22 recite “the at least one component suitable for the forming process component”. It is entirely unclear if this phrase is referencing the above noted at least one of the components being suitable as the starting material for use in at least the forming process portion.
Regarding claim 1, lines 22 and 24, there is insufficient antecedent basis for “the forming process component” and “the further forming process”. These terms are not previously recited.
Regarding claim 2, as above, it is unclear which of the at least one forming process portion is being referenced by “the forming process portion” in lines 16-17, and also in line 23.
Regarding claim 2, parent claim 1, line 3, recites at least one natural-based fiber portion. It is unclear which of the at least one natural-based fiber portion is being referenced by “the natural-based fiber portion” in claim 2, line 4.
Regarding claim 3, parent claim 1, lines 15-17, recites at least one of the components being suitable as the starting material for use in at least the forming process portion. It is unclear which of these at least one of the components is being referenced by “the component” in line 3, and it is also entirely unclear if “the component suitable for the forming process portion” is referencing the above noted limitation in parent claim 1.
Regarding claim 3, line 8, there are various components recited in parent claim 1 and claim 3, including at least one first component, a second component, at least one of the components being suitable as the starting material for use in at least the forming process portion, and the component suitable for the forming process portion. The rambling language of the claims makes it entirely unclear which components are being referenced by “the at least one component” in line 8 of claim 3.
Regarding claim 3, there is insufficient antecedent basis for “the further manufacture process”.
Regarding claim 3, line 5 recites “cures to a growing degree”. However, this limitation clearly does not specify a particular degree of curing, only that curing degree grows. Accordingly, it is unclear what is being referenced by “the degree of curing”. Is this the degree of curing at the beginning of curing, the end of curing, or some other point in time? The specification does not offer any clarification for this issue.
Regarding claim 5, as above it is unclear which components are being referenced by “the at least one component”.
Regarding claim 5, it is unclear what is meant by feeding proportionally and feeding at least proportionally. A proportion is a relationship between two quantities. However, there is no clear indication of the quantities used to determine this proportion. The phrase “at least” also does not make sense with respect to “feeding proportionally”, and it is entirely unclear how proportional feeding is modified by “at least”.
Regarding claim 5, it is unclear if feeding to the auxiliary process portion requires positively performing the auxiliary process portion.
Regarding claim 6, as above it is unclear which components are being referenced by “the at least one component”.
Regarding claim 6, the phrase “in particular” makes it unclear if the limitation of in the form of particles of perennial plants is required.
Regarding claim 7, as above it is unclear which components are being referenced by “the at least one component”.
Regarding claim 7, parent claim 1 recites at least one natural-based fiber portion. It is unclear how the limitation of “a natural-based fiber portion” in claim 7 is related to this limitation in claim 1. Additionally, the phrase “portion particles of annual plants” does not make sense.
Regarding claim 8, line 3, to the extent that “particles forming the natural-based fiber portion” is attempting to reference previously recited particles, no such particles are previously recited and accordingly, this limitation lacks sufficient antecedent basis.
Regarding claim 8, claim 1 recites at least one natural-based fiber portion. It is unclear which is being referenced by “the natural-based fiber portion”.
Regarding claim 8, the phrase “in particular” makes it unclear if the limitation of between 2% and 18% is required.
Regarding claim 8, it is not clear what is meant by the claimed relative humidity. Natural based materials may have a moisture content. Humidity is generally used to describe the moisture content of air, but not solids such as the claimed natural-based materials.
Regarding claim 9, this claim has the same issues as claim 8, detailed above.
Regarding claim 10, it is unclear if the mixture comprises at least 80% chips, the chips having the recited width and length; or rather if the mixture comprises chips wherein at least 80% of the chips have the recited width and length. This language should be clarified accordingly.
Regarding claim 11, as above, it is unclear if the mixture comprises at least 80% of long chips, the chips having the recited with and length; or rather if the mixture comprises long chips wherein at least 80% of the chips have the recited width and length. This language should be clarified accordingly.
Regarding claim 12, it is unclear if the mixture comprises at least 80% fibers, the fibers having the recited width and length; or rather if the mixture comprises fibers wherein at least 80% of the fibers have the recited width and length. This language should be clarified accordingly.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 1-7 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Krebs (US 2009/0211692 A1), and optionally further in view of Pettersson (WO 2019/209165 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Krebs teaches a method of making a construction board (Abstract) having at least one layer having at least one natural-based fiber portion (paragraphs 3-4 and 114). Krebs teaches the at least one layer being comprised of a starting material made from a raw material obtained from recycled material from wood or wood based materials or wood residuals (paragraphs 3-4 and 114). Krebs teaches the method having at least one forming process portion (paragraphs 6-30) and an auxiliary process portion, satisfied by any of various ultrasonic treatment steps (paragraph 40-81). Krebs teaches ii) breaking down the raw material under the action of a pressure shock wave having a pulse duration and a pulse frequency into at least one first component and a second component, at least one of the components being suitable as the starting material for use in at least the forming process portion of the construction board to be made, iii) separating at least the second component and the first component, satisfied by cleaning to separate contaminants or separating agglomerates (paragraphs 76, 140-141 and 145-149), and iv) at least proportional supply of the at least one component suitable for the forming process component of the construction board into the forming process portion of the further forming process (paragraphs 6-30, 108-109, 120, 130). It is noted that supplying components to further steps of forming satisfies the claimed proportional supply because any supply is proportional to the overall board weight.
Krebs differs from claim 1 in that:
i. Krebs does not recite mechanically precomminuting a preformed construction board into the raw material.
(i) Krebs teaches the use of recycled wood and wood based materials (paragraphs 3, 14 and 114) and cutting, milling or disintegrating the raw material into particles of suitable size and shape (paragraph 4). These teachings reasonably suggest forming the raw material from any suitable source of wood based material to be recycled, such as preformed construction boards. Pettersson is optionally cited to provide evidence that it is known to disintegrate preformed construction boards for recycling the resulting raw material to form new board materials (page 5, lines 1-26). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to provide this limitation in Krebs because one having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use a readily available source of recyclable wood material as the recycled wood material taught by Krebs, as suggested by the above noted teachings of Krebs or Krebs and Pettersson.
Regarding claim 2, Krebs teaches material preparation of a material stream of the natural-based fiber portion, satisfied by cleaning, screening or drying (paragraphs 7, 15-17 and 25-26); gluing of the material stream (paragraphs 9, 19 and 27); shaping of the material stream to form a mat, pressing the mat, and fabrication of board products (paragraph 4, 11-13, 20-22, 28-30, 82 and 221). The growing degree of curing is satisfied by curing which occurs during pressing and curing, i.e. between steps a) and e), and the degree of cure is naturally based on at least one parameter of pressing, such as the pressing temperature (paragraphs 4, 13, 22 and 30).
Regarding claim 3, the pulsed breaking down or separating may occur after binder application with heating applied to the component materials (paragraph 9-11, 79-80 and 106-107). Naturally, any thermally curable binder will experience a degree of cure from heating. Feeding in coordination with the degree of curing is a rather broad limitation which requires no more that providing a material which is still capable of being pressed and cured into the desired product. Such is clearly satisfied by Krebs.
Regarding claim 4, Krebs clearly satisfies at least one of the recited further process steps.
Regarding claim 5, Krebs clearly satisfies this additional limitation. Supplying components to the auxiliary process satisfies the claimed proportional feeding because any feeding is proportional to the overall board weight.
Regarding claims 6-7, Krebs suggests a component comprising particles of perennial plants such as bagasse or particles of annual plants such as straw (paragraphs 3-4).
Regarding claim 11, Krebs suggests the components may comprise a mixture of chips having a width of 20-25 mm and a length of 100-150 mm (paragraph 24). In this embodiment, there is no discussion of chips outside these ranges, and thus it is suggested that essentially all or 100% of the chips have these dimensions. It is noted that a prima facie case of obviousness exists when a claimed range overlaps, falls within or is near a prior art range. See MPEP 2144.05.
Claims 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Krebs, and optionally further in view of Pettersson as applied to claims 1-7 and 11 above, and further in view of Howard (US 5498469).
Regarding claims 8-9, while the claimed humidity is not taught by Krebs, it is known provide a moisture content, taken to satisfy the claimed humidity, within the claimed range for comminution of natural-based fiber materials. Howard suggests a moisture content of 12% is suitable (Example 1). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to provide this limitation in Krebs because one having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to comminute at a known suitable moisture content, as suggested by the teachings of Howard.
Claims 10 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Krebs, and optionally further in view of Pettersson as applied to claims 1-7 and 11 above, and further in view of Elmendorf (US 3164511).
Regarding claims 10 and 12, Krebs does not recite the claimed length and width of the chips. However, Krebs is directed to a variety of board products, and is not limited to any particular product. In the related art of boards formed from natural-based fiber materials, Elmendorf suggests using chips with a width of 0.8 to 6.4 mm (1/32 to 1/4 inch; column 2, lines 40-45). Elmendorf suggests a length of at least 10 times the width, which corresponds to a length of more than 8 mm (0.8 mm × 10; column 2, lines 40-45). It is noted that a prima facie case of obviousness exists when a claimed range overlaps, falls within or is near a prior art range. See MPEP 2144.05. There is no requirement of chips outside these ranges, and thus it is suggested that essentially all or 100% of the chips have these dimensions. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to provide these limitations in Krebs because one having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use know suitable chips to form useful board products, as suggested by the teachings of Elmendorf.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL A TOLIN whose telephone number is (571)272-8633. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30 am - 6 pm.
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 C. Tucker can be reached at (571) 272-1095. 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.
/MICHAEL A TOLIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1745