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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The listing of references in the specification (page 2, last paragraph) is not a proper information disclosure statement. 37 CFR 1.98(b) requires a list of all patents, publications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office, and MPEP § 609.04(a) states, "the list may not be incorporated into the specification but must be submitted in a separate paper." Therefore, unless the references have been cited by the examiner on form PTO-892, they have not been considered.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the drawings of “a press with a platen (claim 1)”, “a multi-opening press (claim 3)”, “multiple platens and configured to press multiple mats (claim 4)”, and “a continuous press (claim 5)”, must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Page 5, line 13, “stand” should be “strand”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
If claim limitations in this application that use the word "means" (or "step"), they 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, if claim limitations in this application that do not use the word "means" (or "step"), they 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.
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 9-10 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 9, line 1, there is no antecedent basis for the limitation, “the mat layer” in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 3-5, and 7-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Scherfke et al. (hereinafter “Scherfke”) (DE-3911661 A1) (This rejection is based on the English translation).
Regarding claim 1, Scherfke discloses a method for removing material build-up on a press platen (see abstract of the English translation), comprising:
forming a manufactured wood strand or chip mat with an upper surface on a forming line (see “wood particle” and “chip board” in the abstract and claim 1);
depositing a thermosetting resin on some or all of the upper surface (see “novolak-based resin” on page 3, paragraph 2. Novolak is a type of synthetic thermoplastic phenol-formaldehyde resin);
inserting the mat into a press with a platen with material build-up on a first surface of the platen (see “fed to the press..” on page 4, second paragraph) and the press has a platen (see the title);
pressing the mat under heat and pressure (see the pressure and temperature on page 4, second paragraph) such that the first surface of the platen comes into contact with the thermosetting resin on the upper surface of the mat, whereby at least a portion of the material build-up on the first surface adheres to the thermosetting resin on the upper surface of the mat (see page 4, second paragraph and the abstract); and
after pressing, removing the mat with the portion of the material build-up adhering to the thermosetting resin on the upper surface from the mat (it is inherent that the mat must be removed from the press in order to start the next pressing cycle, also see claim 1, and the abstract which discloses buildup is removed from heating plates).
Regarding claim 3, the method of claim 1, wherein the press is a multi-opening press.
Regarding claim 4, the method of claim 3, wherein the multi-opening press comprises multiple platens (see “platens” in the title) and is configured to press multiple mats simultaneously (see “a method for removing anat (sic) heating plates and inserts of hot presses” on page 1, last line).
Regarding claim 5, the method of claim 1, wherein the press is a continuous press (It is noted that the claim does not recite a specific structure of a continuous press. Scherfke discloses “hot presses” (see last paragraph of page 2), and thus it can be interpreted as a continuous press dues multiple presses, one press after another).
Regarding claim 7, the method of claim 1, wherein the thermosetting resin is a powder (see “powder form” on page 3, third paragraph).
Regarding claim 8, the method of claim 1, wherein the thermosetting resin comprises phenol formaldehyde (PF), melamine formaldehyde (MF), or urea formaldehyde (UF), or combinations thereof (see “example 3” paragraph on page 4).
Regarding claim 9, the method of claim 1, wherein the mat comprises multiple chip layers (see claim 1, which discloses, “the outer layer of a pressed material”, and thus the mat has more than one chip layers).
Regarding claim 10, the method of claim 9, wherein the thermosetting resin is deposited on the upper surface as a separate layer from the underlying mat strand and/or chip layer or layers (see claim 1, which discloses a resin is applied on the outer layer of a pressed material”)
Regarding claim 11, the method of claim 1, wherein the step of depositing comprises the step of dropping thermosetting resin on the upper surface as the mat passes under a thermosetting resin spreader (see “spreading rollers” in Example 1 section on page 4).
Claims 1, 7-8, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Schoene et al. (hereinafter “Schoene”) (DD-219219 A1). This rejection is based on the English translation of DD-219219 A1.
Regarding claim 1, Schoene discloses a method for removing material build-up on a press platen (see abstract of the English translation), comprising:
forming a manufactured wood strand or chip mat with an upper surface on a forming line (see “production of chipboard and other plate-like wood materials” in the abstract, line 2);
depositing a thermosetting resin on some or all of the upper surface (see “novolak” on page 3, lines 29-23. Novolak is a type of synthetic thermoplastic phenol-formaldehyde resin );
inserting the mat into a press with a platen with material build-up on a first surface of the platen (see “fed to the press..” on page 3, lines 23-24, and the press has a platen (see “hot plates” in the abstract);
pressing the mat under heat and pressure (see the pressure and temperature on page 3, lines 24-25) such that the first surface of the platen comes into contact with the thermosetting resin on the upper surface of the mat, whereby at least a portion of the material build-up on the first surface adheres to the thermosetting resin on the upper surface of the mat (see abstract); and
after pressing, removing the mat with the portion of the material build-up adhering to the thermosetting resin on the upper surface from the mat (it is inherent that the mat must be removed from the press in order to start the next pressing cycle).
Regarding claim 7, the method of claim 1, wherein the thermosetting resin is a powder (see “powder form” on page 3, line 12).
Regarding claim 8, the method of claim 1, wherein the thermosetting resin comprises phenol formaldehyde (PF) (see page 3, line 7).
Regarding claim 11, the method of claim 1, wherein the step of depositing comprises the step of dropping thermosetting resin on the upper surface as the mat passes under a thermosetting resin spreader (see “top lay spreading machine” on page 3, line 31).
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.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Scherfke in view of Gartz (DE 102019112632 B3).
Scherfke discloses wood particles are used to make chip board (i.e. mat) (see abstract). It is well known that the chip mat/board is an oriented strand board mat.
In the event that the Applicant disagreed that the chip mat/board is an oriented strand board mat. Gartz can be applied to disclose that wood chips are pressed into a board or board strand, in particular a wood-based board (see page 2, second paragraph of the English translation).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the chip mat/board made from wood particles of Scherfke, is also called an oriented strand board mat, as taught by Gartz.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Scherfke in view of Kalwa (US 10,399,245).
Scherfke discloses the build up material adhered to surfaces of platens (see abstract and example 1). Scherfke does not expressly disclose the build-up material comprises boric acid or a boric acid-based material.
Kalwa discloses a wood board panel in a form of a chipboard include a complex of boric acid for flame retardant (col. 6, lines 30-37).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the wood chip board of Scherfke is included a complex of boric acid, as taught by Kalwa, for flame retardant, and the boric acid would adhere to surfaces of the platens during a pressing process.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JIMMY T NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-4520. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:30am-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, CHRISTOPHER L TEMPLETON can be reached at 571-270-1477. 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.
JIMMY T. NGUYEN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3725
/JIMMY T NGUYEN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3725