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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1-15 in the reply filed on 9/9/2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 16-19 have been withdrawn from consideration.
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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-4, 8, 9, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Eriksson (USP 4,035,120).
Regarding claim 1, Eriksson discloses a method to refine waste wood-based material, comprising: collecting a waste wood-based material resulting from sawing and/or machining in a wood-based material (col. 2, lines 51-60); separating the waste wood-based material by particle size, without prior grinding, by screening the waste wood-based material through at least one first screen to separate a first fraction of particles from the waste wood-based material, wherein the at least one first screen has apertures having an aperture width of 3000 µm or less (col. 5, lines 33-45 screened to size mesh 14); subsequently screening a remainder of the waste wood-based material through at least one second screen to separate a second fraction of particles from the waste wood- based material, wherein the at least one second screen has apertures having an aperture width exceeding 50 µm (col. 5, lines 33-45 screened to size mesh 18); and wherein a third fraction of particles is formed by particles from the waste wood-based material passing through the at least one second screen (col. 5, lines 33-45 further screened materials dependent on desired mesh size).
Regarding claim 2, Eriksson discloses using the second fraction of particles as feedstock in a method to produce a building panel, or part of a building panel (col. 1, lines 15-20 where chipboard are made from the particles).
Regarding claim 3, Eriksson discloses an average particle size of the second fraction of particles is less than an average particle size of the first fraction of particles and exceeds an average particle size of the third fraction of particles (col. 5, lines 33-45 progressive sorting to smaller sizes).
Regarding claim 4, Eriksson discloses the aperture width of the at least one second screen is less than the aperture width of the at least one first screen (col. 5, lines 33-45 where mesh 18 is small than mesh 14).
Regarding claim 8, Eriksson discloses the waste wood-based material is not dried prior to screening (see Fig. 3; the dryer is later in the processing chain than the sifting and screening steps).
Regarding claim 9, Eriksson discloses grinding the first fraction of particles after screening (element 12).
Regarding claim 14, Eriksson discloses the at least one first screen (col. 5, lines 33-45) and/or the at least one second screen is vibrating.
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 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 of this title, 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 7, 11, 12, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eriksson in view of Design Choice.
Regarding claim 7, Eriksson does not explicitly disclose at least 60% of the particles of the second fraction of particles have a size in a range of 100-400 µm. However, before the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to obtain a desired particle size because Applicant has not disclosed that a specific percentage of particles in a desired range provides an advantage, is used for a particular purpose, or solves a stated problem. One of ordinary skill in the art, furthermore, would have expected Eriksson, and applicant’s invention, to perform equally well with either screening mesh because both meshes would perform the same function of separating particles to a desired size for the purpose of obtaining a desired fraction size for use in building chipboards.
Regarding claim 11, Eriksson does not explicitly disclose the at least one first screen comprises a set of first screens, wherein each first screen has apertures having an aperture width in a range of 450 to 3000 µm. However, before the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to obtain a desired particle size because Applicant has not disclosed that a specific size of particles in a desired range provides an advantage, is used for a particular purpose, or solves a stated problem. One of ordinary skill in the art, furthermore, would have expected Eriksson, and applicant’s invention, to perform equally well with either screening mesh because both meshes would perform the same function of separating particles to a desired size for the purpose of obtaining a desired fraction size for use in building chipboards.
Regarding claim 12, Eriksson does not explicitly disclose the at least one second screen comprises a set of second screens, wherein each second screen has apertures having an aperture width in a range of 50 to 600 µm. However, before the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to obtain a desired particle size because Applicant has not disclosed that a specific size of particles in a desired range provides an advantage, is used for a particular purpose, or solves a stated problem. One of ordinary skill in the art, furthermore, would have expected Eriksson, and applicant’s invention, to perform equally well with either screening mesh because both meshes would perform the same function of separating particles to a desired size for the purpose of obtaining a desired fraction size for use in building chipboards.
Regarding claim 15, Eriksson does not explicitly disclose the at least one first and/or at least one second screen is vibrating with a stroke of 1.5-8 mm. However, before the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to vibrate a screen at a specific stroke because Applicant has not disclosed that a specific stroke provides an advantage, is used for a particular purpose, or solves a stated problem. One of ordinary skill in the art, furthermore, would have expected Eriksson, and applicant’s invention, to perform equally well with either vibration stroke because both strokes would perform the same function of separating particles for the purpose of collecting particles for further processing into chipboards.
Claims 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eriksson in view of Aitchison et al (USP 5,341,939).
Regarding claim 5, Eriksson does not disclose the claim limitations. Aitchison teaches the at least one first screen is at a non-zero angle relative to a horizontal plane (col. 2, lines 21-34) for the purpose of adjusting for the particular material which is being separated by the unit. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to modify Eriksson, as taught by Aitchison, for the purpose of adjusting for the particular material which is being separated by the unit.
Regarding claim 6, Eriksson does not disclose the claim limitations. Aitchison teaches the at least one second screen is at a non-zero angle relative to a horizontal plane (col. 2, lines 21-34) for the purpose of adjusting for the particular material which is being separated by the unit. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to modify Eriksson, as taught by Aitchison, for the purpose of adjusting for the particular material which is being separated by the unit.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eriksson in view of Greten (USP 3,098,781).
Regarding claim 10, Eriksson does not disclose the claim limitations. Greten teaches compacting the third fraction of particles to pellets after screening (col. 6, lines 33-60 where the wood particle sizes are controlled in size) for the purpose of creating wood particle sizes within boards that are controlled in accordance with the use to be made of the boards. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to modify Eriksson, as taught by Greten, for the purpose of creating wood particle sizes within boards that are controlled in accordance with the use to be made of the boards.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eriksson in view of Forsberg (USP 3,087,617).
Regarding claim 13, Eriksson does not disclose the claim limitations. Forsberg teaches the at least one first and/or the at least one second screen comprises chains arranged on the at least one first screen and/or the at least one second screen (col. 6, lines 26-39 chains prevent blinding) for the purpose of preventing blinding on vibratory screen. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to modify Eriksson, as taught by Forsberg, for the purpose of preventing blinding on vibratory screen.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Kalyanavenkateshware Kumar whose telephone number is (571)272-8102. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 08:00-16:30.
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, Michael McCullough can be reached on 571-272-7805. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/K.K./Examiner, Art Unit 3653
/MICHAEL MCCULLOUGH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3653