DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 09/15/2025 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 31 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding Claim 31, the claim recites a negative limitation. Any negative limitation or exclusionary proviso must have basis in the original disclosure. Silence does not generally suffice to support a negative claim limitation. (MPEP §2173.05(i)). As there is no recitation regarding ozone in the original Specification, Claim 31 recites new matter that does not meet the written description requirement.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 1, 3, 5-6, 8, 18, 20-22, 26 and 29 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Korai et al. (US 6,602,451) in view of Zhang (CN 2499494 Y), Held (US 4,923,656) and Pereira et al. (NPL, Modeling the continuous hot-pressing of MDF).
Regarding Claim 1, Korai teaches a MDF comprising wood fibers (Column 2, Lines 43-47) with fibers of thickness of 0.1 to 1 mm thick and 0.2 to 50 mm in length. (Column 3, Lines 15-20). As fibers are mostly cylindrical, then the thickness of the fiber would be approximately the width of the fiber. Therefore, Korai teaches a length, width and thickness range that overlap the claimed range. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. (MPEP §2144.05). Korai teaches the fibers are pressed with an adhesive/binder resin. (Column 2, Lines 43-47). Korai teaches these wood fibers acetylated. (Abstract; Column 3, Lines 15-25).
Korai does not teach the panel has an aspect ratio of at least 100 and a surface area of least 1 m2.
However, Zhang teaches using medium density fiberboard with width of 0.6 to 1.8 m, a length of 1.22 to 6 m, and a thickness of 0.004 to 0.035 m. (Page 2). Zhang teaches a surface area of 0.732 to 10.8 m2. This overlaps the claimed range of at least 1 m2. Zhang teaches an aspect ratio of 34 to 1500. This overlaps the claimed range of at least 100, higher than 122, and higher than 200. Zhang teaches dimensions of these medium density fiberboard can be used to as templates in building construction.
Thus, as Zhang teaches the claimed dimensions are desired for construction purposes, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to make the MDF panels taught by Korai to the claimed dimension taught by Zhang.
Korai and Zhang do not specifically teach the panel posses a Machine Direction.
However, Held teaches continuous manufacturing process of MDF (Abstract). Held teaches taking wood fibers, adding in adhesive, casting the fibers onto a moving belt, prepressing and hot pressing the fibers into a fiber mat through a double-band press. (Column 4, Lines 33-65). By using a continuous direction, a machine direction will be applied to the MDF. Pereira teaches that continuous production is preferred, as it leads to greater productivity and better economic results. (Page 310).
Thus, as Pereira teaches the claimed process for making MDF provides the advantage of faster production, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art at the time invention to make the MDF of Korai and Zhang with the process of Held and to yield an MDF with a machine direction.
Regarding Claim 3, Zhang teaches using medium density fiberboard with width of 0.6 to 1.8 m, a length of 1.22 to 6 m, and a thickness of 0.004 to 0.035 m. (Page 2). Zhang teaches an aspect ratio of 34 to 1500. This overlaps the claimed range of higher than 122.
Regarding Claim 5, Korai teaches a MDF comprising wood fibers (Column 2, Lines 43-47) with fibers of thickness of 0.1 to 1 mm thick and 0.2 to 50 mm in length. (Column 3, Lines 15-20). This overlaps the claimed length of 1 to 5 mm.
The claim is directed to a product-by-process (PBP) claim. The MPEP states: “Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” (MPEP § 2113).
Claim 5 recites a process of acetylating whole wood and chipping the wood into fibers, while Korai recites a process of acetylating the wood fibers after chipping. While Claim 5 recites a process for making acetylated wood that differs from the process taught by Korai, the process limitations have no patentable significance as long as the product taught by Korai and Zhang is the same as the claimed product. One of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonably expected the same product suggested by Korai and Zhang, in spite of the differences in the making of the acetylated wood fibers, i.e., a process limitation.
Regarding Claim 6, Kaori teaches the adhesive is MDI system. (Column 4, Lines 1-5).
Regarding Claim 8, the claim is directed to a product-by-process (PBP) claim. The MPEP states: “Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” (MPEP § 2113).
Claim 8 recites a process of acetylating whole wood and chipping the wood into fibers, while Korai recites a process of acetylating the wood fibers directly. While Claim 8 recites a process for making acetylated wood that differs from the process taught by Korai, the process limitations have no patentable significance as long as the product taught by Korai and Zhang is the same as the claimed product. One of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonably expected the same product suggested by Korai and Zhang, in spite of the differences in the making of the acetylated wood fibers, i.e., a process limitation.
Regarding Claim 18, Zhang teaches using medium density fiberboard with width of 0.6 to 1.8 m, a length of 1.22 to 6 m, and a thickness of 0.004 to 0.035 m. (Page 2). Zhang teaches an aspect ratio of 34 to 1500. This overlaps the claimed range of higher than 200.
Regarding Claim 20, Zhang teaches the MDF has two sides, one side ranging from 600 to 1800mm in length and a second side ranging from 1220 to 6000 mm in length. (Page 1). The difference in lengths ranges from 0 to 10,000%. This overlaps the claimed range of 0.5 to 5%.
Regarding Claim 21, Korai teaches all the fibers are acetylated. (Claim 14 of Korai)
Regarding Claim 22, the instant Specification recites a MDF board can be fixed with screws, nails or fixing means if the board has the claimed aspect ratio at least 100. (Paragraph 0020). Given the MDF taught by Korai and Zhang has the claimed aspect ratio, then MDF taught by Korai and Zhang would inherently be able to fixed at less than 25 mm from a corner, less than 12 mm from an edge of the panel, and combination thereof.
Regarding Claim 26, Korai teaches a method of forming MDF using acetylated wood fibers. (Claim 14-26 of Korai; Column 2, Lines 43-47).
Regarding Claim 29, Zhang teaches using medium density fiberboard with width of 0.6 to 1.8 m, a length of 1.22 to 6 m, and a thickness of 0.004 to 0.035 m. (Page 2). Zhang teaches an aspect ratio of 34 to 1500. This overlaps the claimed range of higher than 200.
Claims 5, 7, 8 and 30 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Korai, Zhang, Held and Pereira, in further view of Hirano et al. (US 6,632,326).
Regarding Claim 5, Korai does not teach the process of forming the acetylated wood fibers.
However, Hirano teaches acetylating wood for fiberboard. (Abstract) Hirano also teaches the claimed process of drying wood, acetylating the wood with acetic anhydride, and refining the wood into chips and into fibers having dimensions of 0.1-1.0 mm and 0.2 to 50 mm long or the claimed process of chipping wood, acetylating the chips and refining the chips to wood fibers. (Column 1 and 4). This overlaps the claimed range largest dimension of 5 mm or below or the fibers having a length of 1 to 5 mm. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Hirano teaches the motivation for using these process and wood sources, as it is cheaper and faster method of acetylating wood as it requires a smaller reactor to perform the acetylation. (Column 2, Lines 6-21, Column 1, Lines 41-53). Iwata recognizes that acetylation is an expensive process. (Column 1, Lines 30-36).
Thus, as Hirano teaches the claimed wood source is suitable for acetylation and use in MDF and the claimed manufacturing process makes the acetylation cheaper, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to use the claimed process to acetylate the wood fibers in the MDF taught by Korai.
Regarding Claim 7, Korai and Zhang teaches the panel discussed above but do not state the type of wood used.
However, Hirano teaches types of wood suitable for acetylating and for making fiberboards are pine and spruce. (Column 3, Lines 7-10; Abstract).
Thus, as Hirano teaches pine and spruce are suitable for fiberboards and take acetylation well, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to use such wood in the panel of Korai and Zhang
Regarding Claim 8, Hirano also teaches the claimed process of drying wood, acetylating the wood with acetic anhydride, and refining the wood into chips and into fibers. (Column 1 and 4).
Regarding Claim 30, Hirano teaches the wood can be radiata pine are suitable for acetylation. (Column 3, Lines 7-10; Abstract).
Thus, as Hirano teaches pine and spruce are suitable for fiberboards and take acetylation well, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to use such wood in the panel of Korai and Zhang
Claim 9-10 and 25 are rejected under 35 under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Korai, Zhang, Held, and Pereira et al. in view of Rakszawski (US 3,504,073).
Regarding Claim 9-10, Korai and Zhang do not specifically teach the claimed process of making the MDF panel.
Held teaches continuous manufacturing process of MDF (Abstract). Held teaches taking wood fibers, adding in adhesive, casting the fibers onto a moving belt, prepressing and hot pressing the fibers into a fiber mat through a double-band press, a type of moving belt. (Column 4, Lines 33-65). By using a continuous direction, a machine direction will be applied to the MDF. Pereira teaches that continuous production is preferred, as it leads to greater productivity and better economic results. (Page 310).
Thus, as Pereira teaches the claimed process for making MDF provides the advantage of faster production, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art at the time invention to make the MDF of Korai and Zhang with the process of Held.
Held does not specifically teach prepressing is cold prepressing.
However, Rakszawski teaches making medium density fiberboard (Abstract) by cold pre-pressing before hot pressing. (Column 3, Lines 30-37). Rakszawski teaches the motivation for a cold prepress before the hot pressing, as it keeps the wood fiber cake in place and allows the cake to be transported to the hot pressing step without breaking apart. (Column 3, Lines 30-37).
Thus, as Rakszawski teaches cold prepressing provides the advantage of ensuring the fiberboard will not break before hot pressing, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to ensure cold-prepressing before the hot-pressing in the process taught by Held for making the MDF taught by Korai and Zhang.
Regarding Claim 25, Korai, Zhang Held and Rakszawski do not teach the equal dimensional stability in length and width directions.
However, Korai, Zhang, Held, Pereira, and Rakszawski teach the same composition for the MDF, then it would implicitly also have the same physical properties, such as equal dimensional stability in length and width direction. “Where…the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, the PTO can require an applicant to prove that the prior art products do not necessarily or inherently possess the characteristics of his claimed product. Whether the rejection is based on “inherency” under 35 USC 102, on “prima facie obviousness” under 35 USC 103, jointly or alternatively, the burden of proof is the same, and its fairness is evidenced by the PTO's inability to manufacture products or to obtain and compare prior art products. See In re Brown, 59 CCPA 1036, 459 F.2d 531, 173 USPQ 685 (1972).” In re Best, Bolton and Shaw 195 USPQ 430 (CCPA 1977).
Claim 23 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Korai, Zhang, Held and Pereria in further view of Wantling et al. (US 2007/0181035).
Regarding Claim 23, Korai and Zhang teach the MDF discussed above, but do not teach the inclusion of wax.
However, Wantling teaches making cellulosic compound products, such as MDF, comprising (Paragraph 0003) acetylated wood, binder, and wax (Paragraph 0052; Abstract).
Wantling teaches adding wax reduces the biological degradation of the wood composite. (Paragraph 0015).
Thus, as Wantling teaches adding in max to MDF provides the advantage of reducing degradation of the wood composite, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to add wax to the MDF taught by Korai and Zhang.
Claim 28 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Korai, in view of Zhang, Held, Pereira, and MeadowHouse (NPL).
Regarding Claim 28, Korai teaches a MDF comprising wood fibers (Column 2, Lines 43-47) with fibers of thickness of 0.1 to 1 mm thick and 0.2 to 50 mm in length. (Column 3, Lines 15-20). As fibers are mostly cylindrical, then the thickness of the fiber would be approximately the width of the fiber. Therefore, Korai teaches a length, width and thickness range that overlap the claimed range. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. (MPEP §2144.05). Korai teaches the fibers are pressed with an adhesive/binder resin. (Column 2, Lines 43-47). Korai teaches these wood fibers acetylated. (Abstract; Column 3, Lines 15-25).
Korai does not teach the panel has an aspect ratio of at least 100 and a surface area of least 1 m2.
However, Zhang teaches using medium density fiberboard with width of 0.6 to 1.8 m, a length of 1.22 to 6 m, and a thickness of 0.004 to 0.035 m. (Page 2). Zhang teaches a surface area of 0.732 to 10.8 m2. This overlaps the claimed range of at least 1 m2. Zhang teaches an aspect ratio of 34 to 1500. This overlaps the claimed range of at least 100, higher than 122, and higher than 200. Zhang teaches dimensions of these medium density fiberboard can be used to as templates in building construction.
Thus, as Zhang teaches the claimed dimensions are desired for construction purposes, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to make the MDF panels taught by Korai to the claimed dimension taught by Zhang.
Korai and Zhang do not specifically teach the MDF has a machine direction.
However, Held teaches continuous manufacturing process of MDF (Abstract). Held teaches taking wood fibers, adding in adhesive, casting the fibers onto a moving belt, prepressing and hot pressing the fibers into a fiber mat through a double-band press. (Column 4, Lines 33-65). By using a continuous direction, a machine direction will be applied to the MDF. Pereira teaches that continuous production is preferred, as it leads to greater productivity and better economic results. (Page 310).
Thus, as Pereira teaches the claimed process for making MDF provides the advantage of faster production, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art at the time invention to make the MDF of Korai and Zhang with the process of Held.
Zhang further teaches MDF can be used to as formwork for concreting. (Page 1). MeadowHouse shows concrete formwork has wood panels arranged in rows without substantial seams between them (Page 1). Thus, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to arrange the panels taught by Korai, Zhang, Held, and Periera in the fashion taught by MeadowHouse to use the plurality panels for concrete framework as desired by Zhang.
Claims 1, 3, 5-6, 8, 18, 20, 22, 26, 29 and 31 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Iwata et al. (US 6,376,582) in view of Zhang, Held and Pereira et al.
Regarding Claim 1, Iwata teaches a MDF comprising wood fibers (Column 1, Lines 15-36; Abstract) with fibers of thickness of 0.1 to 1 mm thick and 0.2 to 5 mm in length. (Column 4, Lines 22-26). As fibers are mostly cylindrical, then the thickness of the fiber would be approximately the width of the fiber. Therefore, Iwata teaches a length, width and thickness range that overlap the claimed range. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. (MPEP §2144.05). Iwata teaches the fibers are pressed with an adhesive/binder resin. (Claim 4 of Iwata). Iwata teaches these wood fibers acetylated. (Abstract).
Iwata does not teach the panel has an aspect ratio of at least 100 and a surface area of least 1 m2.
However, Zhang teaches using medium density fiberboard with width of 0.6 to 1.8 m, a length of 1.22 to 6 m, and a thickness of 0.004 to 0.035 m. (Page 2). Zhang teaches a surface area of 0.732 to 10.8 m2. This overlaps the claimed range of at least 1 m2. Zhang teaches an aspect ratio of 34 to 1500. This overlaps the claimed range of at least 100, higher than 122, and higher than 200. Zhang teaches dimensions of these medium density fiberboard can be used to as templates in building construction.
Thus, as Zhang teaches the claimed dimensions are desired for construction purposes, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to make the MDF panels taught by Iwata to the claimed dimension taught by Zhang.
Iwata and Zhang do not specifically teach the panel posses a Machine Direction.
However, Held teaches continuous manufacturing process of MDF (Abstract). Held teaches taking wood fibers, adding in adhesive, casting the fibers onto a moving belt, prepressing and hot pressing the fibers into a fiber mat through a double-band press. (Column 4, Lines 33-65). By using a continuous direction, a machine direction will be applied to the MDF. Pereira teaches that continuous production is preferred, as it leads to greater productivity and better economic results. (Page 310).
Thus, as Pereira teaches the claimed process for making MDF provides the advantage of faster production, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art at the time invention to make the MDF of Iwata and Zhang with the process of Held and to yield an MDF with a machine direction.
Regarding Claim 3, Zhang teaches using medium density fiberboard with width of 0.6 to 1.8 m, a length of 1.22 to 6 m, and a thickness of 0.004 to 0.035 m. (Page 2). Zhang teaches an aspect ratio of 34 to 1500. This overlaps the claimed range of higher than 122.
Regarding Claim 5, Iwata teaches a MDF comprising wood fibers (Column 1, Lines 15-36; Abstract) with fibers of thickness of 0.1 to 1 mm thick and 0.2 to 5 mm in length. (Column 4, Lines 22-26). This overlaps the claimed length of 1 to 5 mm.
The claim is directed to a product-by-process (PBP) claim. The MPEP states: “Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” (MPEP § 2113).
Claim 5 recites a process of acetylating whole wood and chipping the wood into fibers, while Iwata recites a process of acetylating the wood fibers after chipping. While Claim 5 recites a process for making acetylated wood that differs from the process taught by Iwata, the process limitations have no patentable significance as long as the product taught by Iwata and Zhang is the same as the claimed product. One of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonably expected the same product suggested by Iwata and Zhang, in spite of the differences in the making of the acetylated wood fibers, i.e., a process limitation.
Regarding Claim 6, Iwata teaches the adhesive is MDI system. (Claim 4 of Iwata).
Regarding Claim 8, the claim is directed to a product-by-process (PBP) claim. The MPEP states: “Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” (MPEP § 2113).
Claim 8 recites a process of acetylating whole wood and chipping the wood into fibers, while Iwata recites a process of acetylating the wood fibers directly. While Claim 8 recites a process for making acetylated wood that differs from the process taught by Iwata, the process limitations have no patentable significance as long as the product taught by Iwata and Zhang is the same as the claimed product. One of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonably expected the same product suggested by Iwata and Zhang, in spite of the differences in the making of the acetylated wood fibers, i.e., a process limitation.
Regarding Claim 18, Zhang teaches using medium density fiberboard with width of 0.6 to 1.8 m, a length of 1.22 to 6 m, and a thickness of 0.004 to 0.035 m. (Page 2). Zhang teaches an aspect ratio of 34 to 1500. This overlaps the claimed range of higher than 200.
Regarding Claim 20, Zhang teaches the MDF has two sides, one side ranging from 600 to 1800mm in length and a second side ranging from 1220 to 6000 mm in length. (Page 1). The difference in lengths ranges from 0 to 10,000%. This overlaps the claimed range of 0.5 to 5%.
Regarding Claim 22, the instant Specification recites a MDF board can be fixed with screws, nails or fixing means if the board has the claimed aspect ratio at least 100. (Paragraph 0020). Given the MDF taught by Iwata and Zhang has the claimed aspect ratio, then MDF taught by Iwata and Zhang would inherently be able to fixed at less than 25 mm from a corner, less than 12 mm from an edge of the panel, and combination thereof.
Regarding Claim 26, Iwata teaches a method of forming MDF using acetylated wood fibers. (Claim 6 of Iwata; Abstract)
Regarding Claim 29, Zhang teaches using medium density fiberboard with width of 0.6 to 1.8 m, a length of 1.22 to 6 m, and a thickness of 0.004 to 0.035 m. (Page 2). Zhang teaches an aspect ratio of 34 to 1500. This overlaps the claimed range of higher than 200.
Regarding Claim 31, Iwata does not require the fibers to ozonized.
Claims 5, 7, 8 and 30 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Iwata, Zhang, Held and Pereira, in further view of Hirano et al. (US 6,632,326).
Regarding Claim 5, Iwata does not teach the process of forming the acetylated wood fibers.
However, Hirano teaches acetylating wood for fiberboard. (Abstract) Hirano also teaches the claimed process of drying wood, acetylating the wood with acetic anhydride, and refining the wood into chips and into fibers having dimensions of 0.1-1.0 mm and 0.2 to 50 mm long or the claimed process of chipping wood, acetylating the chips and refining the chips to wood fibers. (Column 1 and 4). This overlaps the claimed range largest dimension of 5 mm or below or the fibers having a length of 1 to 5 mm. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Hirano teaches the motivation for using these process and wood sources, as it is cheaper and faster method of acetylating wood as it requires a smaller reactor to perform the acetylation. (Column 2, Lines 6-21, Column 1, Lines 41-53). Iwata recognizes that acetylation is an expensive process. (Column 1, Lines 30-36).
Thus, as Hirano teaches the claimed wood source is suitable for acetylation and use in MDF and the claimed manufacturing process makes the acetylation cheaper, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to use the claimed process to acetylate the wood fibers in the MDF taught by Iwata.
Regarding Claim 7, Iwata and Zhang teaches the panel discussed above but do not state the type of wood used.
However, Hirano teaches types of wood suitable for acetylating and for making fiberboards are pine and spruce. (Column 3, Lines 7-10; Abstract).
Thus, as Hirano teaches pine and spruce are suitable for fiberboards and take acetylation well, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to use such wood in the panel of Iwata and Zhang
Regarding Claim 8, Hirano also teaches the claimed process of drying wood, acetylating the wood with acetic anhydride, and refining the wood into chips and into fibers. (Column 1 and 4).
Regarding Claim 30, Hirano teaches the wood can be radiata pine are suitable for acetylation. (Column 3, Lines 7-10; Abstract).
Thus, as Hirano teaches pine and spruce are suitable for fiberboards and take acetylation well, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to use such wood in the panel of Iwata and Zhang
Claim 9-10 and 25 are rejected under 35 under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Iwata, Zhang, Held, and Pereira et al. in view of Rakszawski (US 3,504,073).
Regarding Claim 9-10, Iwata and Zhang do not specifically teach the claimed process of making the MDF panel.
Held teaches continuous manufacturing process of MDF (Abstract). Held teaches taking wood fibers, adding in adhesive, casting the fibers onto a moving belt, prepressing and hot pressing the fibers into a fiber mat through a double-band press, a type of moving belt. (Column 4, Lines 33-65). By using a continuous direction, a machine direction will be applied to the MDF. Pereira teaches that continuous production is preferred, as it leads to greater productivity and better economic results. (Page 310).
Thus, as Pereira teaches the claimed process for making MDF provides the advantage of faster production, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art at the time invention to make the MDF of Iwata and Zhang with the process of Held.
Held does not specifically teach prepressing is cold prepressing.
However, Rakszawski teaches making medium density fiberboard (Abstract) by cold pre-pressing before hot pressing. (Column 3, Lines 30-37). Rakszawski teaches the motivation for a cold prepress before the hot pressing, as it keeps the wood fiber cake in place and allows the cake to be transported to the hot pressing step without breaking apart. (Column 3, Lines 30-37).
Thus, as Rakszawski teaches cold prepressing provides the advantage of ensuring the fiberboard will not break before hot pressing, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to ensure cold-prepressing before the hot-pressing in the process taught by Held for making the MDF taught by Iwata and Zhang.
Regarding Claim 25, Iwata, Zhang Held and Rakszawski do not teach the equal dimensional stability in length and width directions.
However, Iwata, Zhang, Held, Pereira, and Rakszawski teach the same composition for the MDF, then it would implicitly also have the same physical properties, such as equal dimensional stability in length and width direction. “Where…the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, the PTO can require an applicant to prove that the prior art products do not necessarily or inherently possess the characteristics of his claimed product. Whether the rejection is based on “inherency” under 35 USC 102, on “prima facie obviousness” under 35 USC 103, jointly or alternatively, the burden of proof is the same, and its fairness is evidenced by the PTO's inability to manufacture products or to obtain and compare prior art products. See In re Brown, 59 CCPA 1036, 459 F.2d 531, 173 USPQ 685 (1972).” In re Best, Bolton and Shaw 195 USPQ 430 (CCPA 1977).
Claim 23 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Iwata, Zhang, Held and Pereria in further view of Wantling et al. (US 2007/0181035).
Regarding Claim 23, Iwata and Zhang teach the MDF discussed above, but do not teach the inclusion of wax.
However, Wantling teaches making cellulosic compound products, such as MDF, comprising (Paragraph 0003) acetylated wood, binder, and wax (Paragraph 0052; Abstract).
Wantling teaches adding wax reduces the biological degradation of the wood composite. (Paragraph 0015).
Thus, as Wantling teaches adding in max to MDF provides the advantage of reducing degradation of the wood composite, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to add wax to the MDF taught by Iwata and Zhang.
Claim 28 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Iwata, in view of Zhang, Held, Pereira, and MeadowHouse (NPL).
Regarding Claim 28, Iwata teaches a MDF comprising wood fibers (Column 1, Lines 15-36; Abstract) with fibers of thickness of 0.1 to 1 mm thick and 0.2 to 5 mm in length. (Column 4, Lines 22-26). As fibers are mostly cylindrical, then the thickness of the fiber would be approximately the width of the fiber. Therefore, Iwata teaches a length, width and thickness range that overlap the claimed range. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. (MPEP §2144.05). Iwata teaches the fibers are pressed with an adhesive/binder resin. (Claim 4 of Iwata). Iwata teaches these wood fibers acetylated. (Abstract).
Iwata does not teach the panel has an aspect ratio of at least 100 and a surface area of least 1 m2.
However, Zhang teaches using medium density fiberboard with width of 0.6 to 1.8 m, a length of 1.22 to 6 m, and a thickness of 0.004 to 0.035 m. (Page 2). Zhang teaches a surface area of 0.732 to 10.8 m2. This overlaps the claimed range of at least 1 m2. Zhang teaches an aspect ratio of 34 to 1500. This overlaps the claimed range of at least 100, higher than 122, and higher than 200. Zhang teaches dimensions of these medium density fiberboard can be used to as templates in building construction.
Thus, as Zhang teaches the claimed dimensions are desired for construction purposes, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to make the MDF panels taught by Iwata to the claimed dimension taught by Zhang.
Iwata and Zhang do not specifically teach the MDF has a machine direction.
However, Held teaches continuous manufacturing process of MDF (Abstract). Held teaches taking wood fibers, adding in adhesive, casting the fibers onto a moving belt, prepressing and hot pressing the fibers into a fiber mat through a double-band press. (Column 4, Lines 33-65). By using a continuous direction, a machine direction will be applied to the MDF. Pereira teaches that continuous production is preferred, as it leads to greater productivity and better economic results. (Page 310).
Thus, as Pereira teaches the claimed process for making MDF provides the advantage of faster production, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art at the time invention to make the MDF of Iwata and Zhang with the process of Held.
Zhang further teaches MDF can be used to as formwork for concreting. (Page 1). MeadowHouse shows concrete formwork has wood panels arranged in rows without substantial seams between them (Page 1). Thus, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to arrange the panels taught by Iwata, Zhang, Held, and Periera in the fashion taught by MeadowHouse to use the plurality panels for concrete framework as desired by Zhang.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered.
Applicant argues there is no motivation to combine Zhang with Korai. This argument is found unpersuasive, as Zhang teaches there is a demand for those dimensions for MDF. Therefore, one with ordinary skill in the art would make acetylated MDF of Korai to the claimed dimension to meet a market need.
Applicant argues there is hindsight bias to making the boards of Korai to the dimension taught by Zhang. This argument is found unpersuasive, as Korai teaches dimensional stability results from using acetylated wood fibers.
Applicant argues that Korai only address thickness swell with regard to dimensional stability and thus a reduction in warping is unexpected. This argument is found unpersuasive, as there is no recitation in Korai stating thickness swell is the only factor in dimensional stability. In fact, prior art has also acknowledged that acetylation not addresses thickness swell for dimensional stability, as discussed in Korai, but also changes in length dimension for dimensional stability, as addressed in Hirano (US 6,632,326 B1, See Example and Comparative Example). Therefore, dimensional stability is understood to address stability in all directions, X, Y and Z, and a reduction in warping due to the reduction in the changes in such directions in not unexpected.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL ZHANG whose telephone number is (571)270-0358. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday: 9:30am-3:30pm, 8:30PM-10:30PM.
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, Frank Vineis can be reached on (571) 270-1547. 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 Zhang/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1781