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 .
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.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Group II, claims 32, 35, 37, 39, 40, 48, 49, 51, 53, 55-65 in the reply filed on 12/26/2025 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 32, 35, 37, 39, 40, 48, 49, 51, 53, 55-58, 62-65 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hu et al. (WO2019/055789, referred to hereinafter as Hu ‘789) in view of Zhu et al. (CN 112178096, see machine translated version).
Regarding claim 32, Hu ‘789 teaches a wood structure (page 2, lines 4-7) comprising a piece of partially delignified wood (page 2, lines 4-7) that retains lumina formed by cell walls of vessels and wood fiber cells or tracheids from an original natural wood (page 2, lines 8-9, page 6, lines 1-10), each of the lumina having an axis that extends along a radial direction of the natural wood (page 3, lines 1-2, page 6, lines 1-10, Fig. 3A), wherein a tangential direction of the natural wood is perpendicular to the longitudinal and radial direction (page 6, lines 1-10, Fig. 3A). Hu ‘789 does not disclose wherein the partially delignified wood contains ray cells from the original natural wood, (entire document). Therefore, the partially delignified wood lacks ray cells from the original natural wood, each ray cell having an axis that extends along a radial direction of the natural wood.
Hu ‘789 fail to teach wherein the piece of partially delignified wood is substantially elastic along the tangential direction and substantially inelastic along the radial and longitudinal directions. However, Zhu et al. teach a wood structure (paragraph [0002]) comprising a piece of partially delignified wood (paragraph [0015]) and wood cell units (paragraph [0010]).
Zhu et al. do not disclose wherein the wood is substantially elastic along the tangential direction and substantially inelastic along the radial and longitudinal directions. However, Zhu et al. do teach wherein the wood has an adjustable elasticity (paragraph [0019]). Where in the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges in elasticity involve only routine skill in the art, absence a showing of criticality. MPEP 2144.05 II. One would have been motivated to modify the elasticity of Zhu et al. because Zhu et al. open to an adjustable elasticity (Zhu et al., paragraph [0019]).
It would have been obvious to a person of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the elasticity of Hu ‘789 to that of Zhu et al. in order to improve elastic limit (Zhu et al., paragraph [0021]).
Regarding claim 35, Hu ‘789 teaches wherein the natural wood is a hardwood (page 9, lines 8-10) wherein at least 90% of lignin is removed which reads on Applicant’s claimed lignin content of the piece of partially delignified is 2-16 wt%, inclusive (page 9, lines 30-35, page 10, line 1); or the natural wood is a softwood (page 9, lines 8-10) wherein at least 90% of lignin is removed which reads on Applicant’s claimed lignin content of the piece of partially delignified is 2-16 wt%, inclusive (page 9, lines 30-35, page 10, line 1).
Regarding claim 37, Hu ‘789 teaches wherein the delignified wood retains sufficient moisture after the drying process (page 11, lines 10-20).
Hu ‘789 do not disclose wherein a moisture content of the partially delignified wood is less than or equal to 15 wt%. However, where in the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges in amount involve only routine skill in the art, absence a showing of criticality. MPEP 2144.05 II. One would have been motivated to modify the moisture content of Hu ‘789 because Hu ‘789 teach wherein the delignified wood retains sufficient moisture after the drying process (page 11, lines 10-20).
Regarding claim 39, Hu ‘789 does not disclose wherein the piece of partially delignified wood has a compressive strength of 0.1-1.5 MPa, inclusive, at 60% compression. However, where in the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges in compressive strength involve only routine skill in the art, absence a showing of criticality. MPEP 2144.05 II. One would have been motivated to modify the compressive strength of Hu et al. in order to provide advantageous mechanical properties (Hu ‘789, page 1, lines 14-20).
Regarding claim 40, Hu ‘789 teaches wherein the wood structure further comprises a coating on external surface or internal surface of the part of partially delignified wood (page 11, lines 20-35, page 12, lines 1-8).
Regarding claim 48, Hu ‘789 teaches wherein the piece of partially delignified wood has a porosity of ~91% which reads on Applicant’s claimed range of at least 50% (page 21, lines 17-22).
Regarding claim 49, Hu ‘789 teaches wherein the wood structure comprises a natural or synthetic polymer disposed within or filling opening lumina of the piece of partially delignified wood (page 11, lines 19-35, page 12, lines 1-8).
Hu ‘789 does not teach wherein a piece of partially delignified wood has a porosity less than or equal to 10%. However, where in the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges in porosity involve only routine skill in the art, absence a showing of criticality. MPEP 2144.05 II. One would have been motivated to modify the porosity of Hu et al. in order to provide hydrophobic properties to the wood (Hu ‘789, page 11, lines 19-35).
Regarding claim 51, Hu ‘789 fails to teach wherein a modulus of elasticity of the piece of partially delignified wood along the tangential direction is at least an order of magnitude less than that along the radial direction or that along the longitudinal direction. However, Zhu et al. teach a wood structure (paragraph [0002]) comprising a piece of partially delignified wood (paragraph [0015]) and wood cell units (paragraph [0010]).
Zhu et al. do not disclose wherein a modulus of elasticity of the piece of partially delignified wood along the tangential direction is at least an order of magnitude less than that along the radial direction or that along the longitudinal direction. However, Zhu et al. do teach wherein the wood has an adjustable elasticity (paragraph [0019]). Where in the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges in elasticity involve only routine skill in the art, absence a showing of criticality. MPEP 2144.05 II. One would have been motivated to modify the elasticity of Zhu et al. because Zhu et al. open to an adjustable elasticity (Zhu et al., paragraph [0019]).
It would have been obvious to a person of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the elasticity of Hu ‘789 to that of Zhu et al. in order to improve elastic limit (Zhu et al., paragraph [0021]).
Regarding claim 53, Hu ‘789 teaches wherein the structure is adapted to many applications which reads on the claimed formed as footwear (page 18, lines 34-35, page 19, lines 1-22).
Regarding claim 55, Hu ‘789 teaches wherein the wood structure further comprises a coating on external surface or internal surface of the part of partially delignified wood (page 11, lines 20-35, page 12, lines 1-8).
Hu ‘789 does not disclose wherein the coating has a thickness of 10 nm to 10 µm, inclusive. However, where in the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges in thickness involve only routine skill in the art, absence a showing of criticality. MPEP 2144.05 II. One would have been motivated to modify the thickness of the coating of Hu et al. in order to provide hydrophobic properties (Hu ‘789, page 11, lines 20-35).
Regarding claim 56, Hu ‘789 teaches wherein the coating comprises nanoparticles (page 11, lines 19-25).
Regarding claim 57, Hu ‘789 teaches wherein the coating comprises a hydrophobic material or water resistant material (page 11, lines 19-35).
Regarding claim 58, Hu ‘789 teaches wherein the coating comprises fluorinated silane, polydimethylsiloxane or epoxy (page 11, lines 29-35, page 12, lines 1-8).
Regarding claim 62, Hu ‘789 teaches wherein the piece of partially delignified wood is pressed (applied force is directed substantially along the tangential direction) (page 1, lines 30-35).
Regarding claim 63, Hu ‘789 teaches wherein the piece consists essentially of the partially delignified wood (page 2, lines 4-7).
Regarding claim 64, Hu ‘789 teaches wherein the wood structure comprises non-native particles or a polymer on the surface (a non-plant material coupled to the piece of partially delignified wood so as to form a heterogenous composite) (page 11, lines 19-35).
Regarding claim 65, Hu ‘789 teaches wherein it may be desirable to partially press the delignified wood such that lumina only partially collapse (voids created by selective removal of the ray cells in the piece of partially delignified wood collapse upon application of a compression force) (page 1, lines 30-35).
Hu ‘789 does not disclose wherein voids expand after removal of the compression force. However, Hu ‘789 does teach that the pressing only partially collapse lumina of the delignified wood so as to tailor the resulting thermal and mechanical properties (page 1, lines 30-35).
It would have been obvious to a person of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide expansion of the voids after removal of the compression force in Hu ‘789 in order to tailor the thermal and mechanical properties (page 1, lines 30-35).
Claims 59 and 60 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hu et al. (WO2019/055789, referred to hereinafter as Hu ‘789) in view of Zhu et al. (CN 112178096, see machine translated version), in further view of Saito et al. (US Patent Application No. 2019/0118508).
Hu ‘789 and Zhu et al. are relied upon as disclosed above.
Regarding claims 59 and 60, Hu ‘789 fails to teach wherein the coating comprises antibacterial salt or metal particles. However, Saito et al. teach a composite comprising a cellulose microfiber sheet and resin (page 1, paragraph [0011]), wherein the resin comprises magnesium sulfate (page 18, paragraph [0297]).
It would have been obvious to a person of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the magnesium sulfate of Saito et al. in the coating of Hu ‘789 in order to provide excellent conductivity (Saito et al., page 18, paragraph [0297]).
Claims 61 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hu et al. (WO2019/055789, referred to hereinafter as Hu ‘789) in view of Zhu et al. (CN 112178096, see machine translated version), in further view of Hu et al. (US Patent Application No. 2018/0356127, referred to hereinafter as Hu ‘127).
Hu ‘789 and Zhu et al. are relied upon as disclosed above.
Regarding claim 61, Hu ‘789 fails to teach wherein the coating comprises plasmonic metallic nanoparticles, catalytic nanoparticles, electroactive nanoparticles, or any combination of the foregoing. However, Hu ‘127 teaches a wood block comprising a coating (page 1, paragraph [0003]), wherein the coating comprises plasmonic metallic nanoparticles (page 6, paragraphs [0108], [0109]).
It would have been obvious to a person of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the plasmonic metallic nanoparticles of Hu ‘127 in the coating of Hu ‘789 in order to improve the solar absorbance of the natural wood (Hu ‘127, page 6, paragraph [0109]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHINESSA GOLDEN whose telephone number is (571)270-5543. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday; 8:00 - 4:00 EST.
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, Alicia Chevalier can be reached on 571-272-1490. 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 https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. 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.
/Chinessa T. Golden/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1788 2/6/2026