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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 July 13, 2026 has been entered.
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.
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 9, 11, 14, 15, and 18-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakurada et al. (US Pat. 3,931,088) in view of Shukla et al. (Construction and Building Materials 34 (2012) 593-601).
Considering Claims 9, 11, and 14: Sakurada et al. teaches a method for making a composite comprising wood/lignocellulose material in two or more discrete parts bonded together (Examples 1-4) with an binder composition comprising soy powder/fluor (6:48-56) and an adhesive formulation comprising an emulsion of a polymer and a isocyanate crosslinker (1:62-2:5), where the adhesive and the additive are mixed together (4:21-24); applied to the wood material (Examples 1-4); and cold pressing the wood material together for 20 minutes to form the composite (Examples 1-4). Sakurada et al. teaches the additive (soy powder) as being 15 to 50 weight percent of the binder (6:67-7:22).
Sakurada et al. teaches that sufficient strength of adhesion can be achieved by cold pressing (7:33-36). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have prepared a composite in the process of Sakurada et al. without hot pressing, and the motivation to do so would have been, as Sakurada et al. teaches, sufficient strength of adhesion can be achieved by the cold pressing step, and the additional energy and time expense can be avoided.
Sakurada et al. does not teach that the lignocellulose is pre-treated with a copper based preservative. However, Shukla et al. teaches pretreated wood for a wood composite with copper azole prior to forming the composite (pg. 594). Sakurada et al. and Shukla et al. are analogous art as they are concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely wood composites. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have pre-treated the wood of Sakurada et al. as in Shukla et al., and the motivation to do so would have been, as Shukla et al. suggests, to reduce the microbial growth in the composite (pg. 593-94).
Considering Claim 15: Sakurada et al. teaches adding the additive in a dry form (Example 5).
Considering Claims 18 and 19: Sakurada et al. teaches pressing three layers of wood material (Examples 1-4).
Considering Claim 21: Sakurada et al. teaches an example comprising clay/a filler and water (Example 1).
Considering Claim 22: Sakurada et al. teaches composite as being plywood (7:37-42).
Claims 16 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakurada et al. (US Pat. 3,931,088) in view of Shukla et al. (Construction and Building Materials 34 (2012) 593-601) as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Via et al. (US 2017/0266930).
Considering Claims 16 and 17: Sakurada et al. teaches the process of claim 9 as shown above.
Sakurada et al. does not teach adding the soy material in a suspension. However, Via et al. teaches that the soy fluor can be in powder form/dry form or a slurry form/in a water suspension (¶0048). Via et al. teaches a moisture content of 1 to 80 weight percent (¶0032). Sakurada et al. and Via et al. are analogous art as they are concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely wood composites. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have added the soy flour of Sakurada et al. in the form of a suspension as in Via et al., and the motivation to do would have been, as Via et al. suggests, it is functionally equivalent to adding the additive in the dry form (¶0048).
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakurada et al. (US Pat. 3,931,088) in view of Shukla et al. (Construction and Building Materials 34 (2012) 593-601).
Considering Claim 23: Sakurada et al. teaches a product prepared by a method for making a composite comprising wood/lignocellulose material in two or more discrete parts bonded together (Examples 1-4) with an binder composition comprising soy powder/fluor (6:48-56) and an adhesive formulation comprising an emulsion of a polymer and a isocyanate crosslinker (1:62-2:5), where the adhesive and the additive are mixed together (4:21-24); applied to the wood material (Examples 1-4); and cold pressing the wood material together for 20 minutes to form the composite (Examples 1-4). Sakurada et al. teaches the additive (soy powder) as being 15 to 50 weight percent of the binder (6:67-7:22).
Sakurada et al. teaches that sufficient strength of adhesion can be achieved by cold pressing (7:33-36). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have prepared a composite in the process of Sakurada et al. without hot pressing, and the motivation to do so would have been, as Sakurada et al. teaches, sufficient strength of adhesion can be achieved by the cold pressing step, and the additional energy and time expense can be avoided.
Sakurada et al. does not teach that the lignocellulose is pre-treated with a copper based preservative. However, Shukla et al. teaches pretreated wood for a wood composite with copper azole prior to forming the composite (pg. 594). Sakurada et al. and Shukla et al. are analogous art as they are concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely wood composites. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have pre-treated the wood of Sakurada et al. as in Shukla et al., and the motivation to do so would have been, as Shukla et al. suggests, to reduce the microbial growth in the composite (pg. 593-94).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed July 13, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive, because:
The applicant’s argument that Sakurada et al. requires a hot pressing step is not persuasive. Sakurada et al. teaches that sufficient strength of adhesion can be achieved by cold pressing (7:33-36). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have prepared a composite in the process of Sakurada et al. without hot pressing, and the motivation to do so would have been, as Sakurada et al. teaches, sufficient strength of adhesion can be achieved by the cold pressing step, and the additional energy and time expense can be avoided.
"A known or obvious composition does not become patentable simply because it has been described as somewhat inferior to some other product for the same use." In re Gurley, 27 F.3d 551, 554, 31 USPQ2d 1130, 1132 (Fed. Cir. 1994). See MPEP § 2123.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LIAM J HEINCER whose telephone number is (571)270-3297. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-5:00.
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, Mark Eashoo can be reached at 571-272-1197. 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.
/LIAM J HEINCER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1767
Prosecution Insights