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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 1-12 are objected to because of the following informalities. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claim 1, line 8, the examiner suggests --the at least partially preformed-- to use consistent claim language and thereby improve claim readability.
Regarding claims 3, 8 and 10-12, in claim 3, parent claim 1 refers to “steps”, not “substeps”. The examiner suggests referring to --step i)-- and --step iv)-- and --step-- in line 7 to use consistent claim terminology and thereby improve claim readability. Similar problems are found in claims 8 and 10-12.
Regarding claim 4, the claim must end with a period. See MPEP 608.01(m).
Regarding claim 10, line 2, --comprising-- should be inserted after “mixture” to correct the grammar.
Regarding claim 11, line 3, “long” should be replaced with --comprising-- to correct the grammar.
Regarding claim 12, line 3, --comprising-- should be inserted after “mixture” to correct the grammar.
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, line 3, it is unclear if “layer” in line 3 is referencing the previously recited layer in line 2, or rather, if “layer” in line 3 is introducing a new layer. The examiner suggests deleting “layer” in line 3.
Regarding claim 3, there is insufficient antecedent basis for “the component in the material stream suitable for the forming process portion”. No such component in the material stream is previously recite in claim 3 or parent claim 1.
Regarding claim 3, lines 8-9, there is insufficient antecedent basis for “the further manufacture process”.
Regarding claim 3, line 5 recites “curing . . . 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” in line 9. 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 claims 6-7, it is unclear which component is being referenced by “the at least one component”, i.e. the first component, the second component or the one of the components recited in parent claim 1.
Regarding claim 6, the phrase “in particular” makes it unclear if the limitation of in the form of particles of perennial plants is required.
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, 3-7 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 a layer having a natural-based fiber portion (paragraphs 3-4 and 114). Krebs teaches the 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 (paragraphs 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 a first component and a second component, 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), iv) supplying the one component suitable for the forming process portion of the construction board into the forming process portion (paragraphs 6-30, 108-109, 120, 130), and v) making a construction board in the forming process portion with the one component (paragraphs 82 and 102-132).
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 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. Krebs clearly teaches curing the component in the material stream suitable for the forming process (paragraphs 111, 122 and 132).
Regarding claim 4, Krebs clearly satisfies at least one of the recited further substeps.
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 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Krebs, and optionally further in view of Pettersson as applied to claims 1, 3-7 and 11 above, and further in view of either one of Shaner (US 4361612) or Anderson (US 2019/0144727 A1).
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). Krebs dos not recite evaluating a degree of curing on the basis of a parameter. However, such is known in the related art to ensure full curing. Shaner evaluates curing on the basis of a DSC analysis parameter of the adhesive, curing time parameter or panel core temperature parameter to ensure full curing (column 7, line 63 to column 8, line 44). Anderson evaluates degree of curing on the basis of a delamination test parameter to determine an appropriate curing time (paragraph 76). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to this limitation in the method of Krebs because one having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to ensure full curing in accordance with the teachings of Shaner, or alternatively because one having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to determine an appropriate curing time in accordance with the teachings of Anderson.
Claims 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Krebs, and optionally further in view of Pettersson as applied to claims 1, 3-7 and 11 above, and further in view of Howard (US 5498469).
Regarding claim 8, 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, 3-7 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 29 May 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues Krebs teaches an ultrasonic wave rather than a shock wave. Applicant points to a German textbook. First it is believed this textbook is in German. Secondly, Applicant has not provided either an original copy or a translated copy of the portion relied upon in the arguments. Further, the claims are not limited to a highly specific definition of a shock wave. A common dictionary describes a shock wave as a region of abrupt change of pressure and density moving as a wave front. Krebs teaches the applied ultrasonic energy is high intensity, providing high velocity and displacement in gas such as air which provides sufficient energy for separation of particles (paragraphs 139-141 and 146-149). Naturally this corresponds to a region of abrupt change of pressure and density of the gas moving as a wave front, because such displacement corresponds to the changes in pressure and density associated with a sound wavefront moving through air. Accordingly, the examiner maintains that Krebs satisfies the claimed pressure shock wave.
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 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
Prosecution Insights