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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 8/12/26 has been entered.
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 49, 55, 62 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. These claims include Markush groups in improper form. Markush groups must be a closed group of alternatives (i.e., “consisting of”). MPEP 2173.05(h) I.
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 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grigsby (WO 2015/092750) in view of Nilsson (US 2009/0042019) in view of Anderson (US 2019/0144727) and (US 2012/0135116).
Grigsby teaches the claimed adhesive composition comprising the combination of water, glycerol, and reducing sugar (all monosaccharides are reducing sugars) [00117] soy protein concentrate/isolate (the polypeptide-containing component), and sodium hydroxide (a base) [00252; 00352; 00428] and also that the order of mixing the components can be relevant and controlled for proper formulation [00341]. This is in the context of forming formaldehyde-free adhesive compositions for engineered wood products such as medium density fiber board [0001].
Although Grigsby is directed to the formation of engineered wood product, they do not explicitly teach the steps associated with forming these products. However, Nilsson teaches the steps associated with forming mdf [0057] 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 Grigsby in a standard process for forming particle board as explained by Nilsson.
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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/6/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive with respect to claim 39.
Applicant argues the prior art does not teach reducing sugar. However, all monosaccharides are reducing sugars and Grigsby teaches the inclusion of monosaccharides in the composition.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 40-41, 44, 48, 51-53, 58, 80, 89-91 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
The previously cited prior art is considered the closest prior art and does not teach the claimed mixing procedure with the claimed components forming a reaction mixture with the claimed amounts and specific moisture content prior to curing.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
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
Prosecution Insights