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 .
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.
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.
Claim(s) 39-42, 44, 48-49, 51-53, 58, 62-63, 80 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Netravali (US 2011/0052881) and Grigsby (WO 2015/092750) in view of Nilsson (US 2009/0042019).
Claims 39-40, 53, 62-63, 80:
Both Netravali and Grigsby teach the claimed adhesive composition. Netravali teaches the combination of water, glycerol, soy protein concentrate/isolate (the polypeptide-containing component), and sodium hydroxide (a base) [0072] and Grigsby teaches the same [00252; 00352] and also that the order of mixing the components can be relevant and controlled for proper formulation [00341]. Both are in the context of forming formaldehyde-free adhesive compositions for engineered wood products.
Although Netravali and Grigsby are directed to the formation of engineered wood product, they do not explicitly teach the steps associated with forming these products such as particleboard and osb. However, Nilsson teaches the steps associated with forming particle board including mixing the adhesive with wood particles to form at least 3 compositions (2 surface layers and 1 core layer) that are laid out and form at least 3 layers, which are pressed under pressure and heat (i.e., cured) to form the final board [0001-0007].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the adhesive composition of Netravali and Grigsby in a standard process for forming particle board as explained by Nilsson.
Claim 41:
Grigsby teaches the addition of a water resistance additive [0099], which has the effect of a swell-retardant.
Claims 42, 48-49, 52:
The amount of glycerol and soy protein in the adhesive is not expressed in wt% based on the dry weight of the first mixture. Similarly, the amount of base is not specified, but enough is added to bring the pH to about 11 (Netravali [0072]). However, all of these components have a specific purpose within the adhesive composition and the amount would have been obvious through routine optimization of these result effective variables.
Claims 44, 51:
Grigsby explicitly teaches protein rich soy flour [00211]. An exact % protein is not given. However, 40-65 wt% protein is taken to be within the range of “protein rich” and also representative of the standard protein content in soy flour.
Claim 58:
Nilsson teaches a curing temperature of 170-230°C [0042].
Claim(s) 43, 45, 54-57 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Netravali (US 2011/0052881) and Grigsby (WO 2015/092750) in view of Nilsson (US 2009/0042019) in view of Anderson (US 2019/0144727) and (US 2012/0135116).
Claims 45, 54-57:
Previously cited prior art is discussed above but does not teach the sulfite or borax additives. However, ‘727 teaches the addition of sodium sulfite as a viscosity reduction agent [0053] and ‘116 teaches borax as a tackifier and viscosity stabilizer [0028]. Both of these components have a specific purpose within the adhesive composition and the amount would have been obvious through routine optimization of these result effective variables. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include these additives into the adhesive composition in order to realize their stated benefit.
Claim 43:
‘727 also teaches spraying the adhesive onto wood fiber or particles [0057].
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/6/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues Nilsson does not teach certain claimed features. However, this is not found persuasive because Nilsson is part of a 103 rejection where the certain claimed features are taught by the other references (i.e., Netravali and Grigsby).
Applicant further argues that none of the prior art references teach the specific mixing of components as claimed. This argument is not found persuasive because a claimed mixing order is prima facie obvious. See MPEP 2144.04 IV C. As shown in the flow charts provided in Applicant’s arguments, the process takes the same compounds (first mixture, wood components, polypeptide) and combines them in every order. The examiner’s position is bolstered by Grigsby’s specific teaching that the order of mixing the components can be relevant and controlled for proper formulation. It is further noted that claim 39 and 40 do not require both paths of the illustrated flow charts or even those particular configurations due to the “or” language in steps (b) and (c). For these reasons the rejection is maintained.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEX A ROLLAND whose telephone number is (571)270-5355. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10-6:30.
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, Curtis Mayes can be reached at 5712721234. 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.
/ALEX A ROLLAND/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1759