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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: the terms “the concentration of the volatile organic compounds lack antecedent basis. For the purpose of examination, the limitation will be interpreted as a concentration of volatile organic compounds. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-20 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.
Regarding claim 1, it is unclear if the limitation of “in which the concentration of the volatile organic compounds is detected during manufacture is being positively recited as a step in the method or not since a step of measuring a concentration follows later in the claim. The claim begins with the language “A method for monitoring the manufacture of wood-based products, including at least one pressing process, with regard to the emission of volatile organic compounds from the wood-based products, in which the concentration of the volatile organic compounds is detected during manufacture” which reads as a preamble, however the method itself is only directed towards the monitoring of the product during manufacture, and the steps with regard to the pressing process are not required as they are not part of the monitoring, but rather the manufacturing. Therefore, the detecting step, which also occurs during the manufacture does not appear to be actually a step, but rather part of the manufacturing process. For the purpose of examination, the beginning of the claim will be interpreted as A method for monitoring the manufacture of wood-based products with regard to the emission of volatile organic compounds from the wood-based products during manufacture.
The phrase “using a measurement method from the field of TDLS (Tunable Diode Laser Spectroscopy), FTIR, NIR, IMS or photo acoustics” is unclear since there is no indication as to what “a measurement method” would entail and what would be considered to be “from the field of” the examples. It is not clear if one of the five measurement methods listed must be required, or anything in a similar field. For the purpose of examination, the limitation will be interpreted as the concentration is measured during an extraction of product parts, or of a product surface using TDLS (Tunable Diode Laser Spectroscopy), FTIR, NIR, IMS or photo acoustics.
It is not clear as to what is meant by “the detected concentration” and if that is the same as the measured concentration previously disclosed, or a different value since the concentration is detected in the preamble of the claim.
It is not clear as to what is meant by “the detected concentration of volatile organic compounds is fed into a mathematical model” and whether that entails any specific steps or elements besides using the values in a calculation since it is not clear what the mathematical model is. For the purpose of examination, it will be assumed that the measured concentration is used as a variable in a mathematical calculation.
The claim recites the limitation of “parameter such as” followed by a list of several parameters. The phrase "such as" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
The claim recites that the parameters are “also fed into the mathematical model” but again it is not clear as to what is meant by this limitation and will likewise be interpreted as the parameters are input to an equation as a variable (or a constant).
Regarding claim 2, the claim recites the limitation of “the parameter of temperature of existing heating circuits of a pressing device” which lacks antecedent basis as no temperature or heating circuits have been previously disclosed and it is unclear as to where such a parameter would come from.
It is further unclear as to what is occurring during when it is “additionally fed to the mathematical model” similar to claim 1.
Regarding claim 3, the claim recites the limitation of “the parameter of the degree of gluing of existing product layers” which lacks antecedent basis as no temperature or heating circuits have been previously disclosed and it is unclear as to where such a parameter would come from. Additionally, it is not clear as to what is meant by the term “degree” as it relates to the gluing as no details have been provided to define the limitation. For example, would the degree the be the amount of glue used, the strength, the bonding, or a different value? It is further unclear as to what is occurring during when it is “additionally fed to the mathematical model.”
Regarding claim 4, the claim recites the limitation of “the molar ratio of the glue used in the product layers is fed into the mathematical model,” however it is not clear as to what to the molar ratio of the glue would be since no such glue has been disclosed and in order for a molar ratio to exist, at least two values would need to be disclosed. It is further unclear as to what is occurring during when it is “fed to the mathematical model.”
Regarding claim 5, the “cover layers” and “middle layers” have not been previously disclosed and are not inherent in the wood-based products as described. Additionally, it is not clear as to what is meant by the proportion being fed to the mathematical model as claimed. Therefore, the layers lack antecedent basis since there is no indication that such layers would exist within the product under test.
Regarding claim 6, the limitation of “the amount of urea added to the product layers” lacks antecedent basis as no urea or step of adding urea to the product has been previously disclosed, and an amount of urea would not be inherently present. Additionally, it is not clear as to what is meant by the amount being fed to the mathematical model as claimed.
Regarding claim 7, it is unclear as to what is meant by the limitation of “an emission of the product parts corrected by the mathematical model” means since it lacks antecedent basis. For the purposes of examination, it will be assumed to read as an emission of the product parts is corrected by the mathematical model, and the emission refers to the calculated emission and not the physical emission.
Regarding claim 8, the claim refers to “a concentration of the volatile organic compounds corrected by the mathematical model” however no such step of correcting the concentration has been previously disclosed.
Regarding claim 9, the claim recites the limitation of “wherein it is carried out” but it is not clear as to what “it” refers to. For the purposes of examination, it will be assumed to be the method itself. The claim further recites the limitation of a “suitable measurement method is selected,” however it is not clear as to what would be considered “suitable” or how one would be selected since no selection steps have been disclosed.
Regarding claim 10, the claim recites the limitation of a device for monitoring a manufacture of wood-based products, preferably for carrying out the method of claim 1. It is not clear if the device actually must be capable of carrying out the method of claim 1, since the term “preferably” would not require such a limitation.
The claim recites the limitation of “wherein the device has components, a transmitting unit and a receiving unit.” It is unclear if the components are the transmitting unit and the receiving unit or if the claim reciting additional components. If the latter is the case, it is not clear as to what the components would be.
The claim recites the limitation of “in that these components are connected to the extraction line” which is assumed to be the transmitting and receiving unit.
The claim recites the limitation that at least one flushing device “is associated with the pipe sections” however it is not clear as to what is meant by the term “associated with.” For the purpose of examination, it will be assumed that the flushing device is connected to or interacts with the pipe in some manner.
Regarding claim 13, the claim recites the limitation of “the pressurization with compressed air” however parent claim 12 only require that the flushing pipes can be supplied with compressed air. Therefore, the pipes themselves need only be capable of receiving compressed air and the limitation of “the pressurization with compressed air” lacks antecedent basis since no such pressurization has been performed.
Regarding claim 16, the claim recites the limitation of “in that transmitter unit and receiver unit are arranged on opposite sides.” It is not clear if this is reciting the addition of a transmitter and a receiver unit since no such units have been previously disclosed, or if the claim should depend from claim 10 which teaches such units.
All claims which depend from those above are rejected for the same reasons due to their dependency thereon.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2 and 7-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wimmer EP2511703A1.1
Regarding claim 1, Wimmer teaches a method for measuring volatile materials emitted from a wood-based product during manufacture in which the concentration of the volatile organic compounds is detected during manufacture (paragraph 0023), wherein the concentration of volatile organic compounds is measured during an extraction of product parts or of a product surface (paragraph 0020) using a measurement method from the field of TDLS (Tunable Diode Laser Spectroscopy), FTIR, NIR, IMS or photoacoustic (paragraph 0021 discloses the use of ion mobility spectrometry),
the detected concentration of volatile organic compounds is fed into a mathematical model (such as a calibration function, paragraphs 0035, 0037 or the process control of paragraph 0048), and
parameters such as product thickness, areal density, production feed rate, flow rate in an extraction of product parts (paragraph 0035) or of the product surface and the moisture content of the raw materials for the wood-based products are determined before the pressing process and are also fed into the mathematical model (paragraph 0048 discloses the monitoring of the concentration of VOCs and variables such as moisture content of the raw materials for the wood based products can be determined before the pressure process to allow for changes in process control during manufacture).
Regarding claim 2, Wimmer teaches the temperature of the pressing device as a process parameter (paragraph 00048) which would be included in the mathematical model as well during the process control.
Regarding claim 7, Wimmer teaches the emission as being referenced against a standardized laboratory emission test method (paragraph 0027 discloses calibration with standard samples).
Regarding claim 8, Wimmer discloses using the concentration during manufacture to control the pressing process (paragraph 0048).
Regarding claim 9, the method of Wimmer is carried out in situ when a suitable measurement method is selected since the process of detection occurs during the manufacture of the wood product.
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.
Claim(s) 3-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wimmer and Bolton US 2022/0161541.
Regarding claim 3, Wimmer discloses the claimed invention but does not explicitly teach the parameter as being a degree of gluing of existing product layers as claimed. Bolton teaches a method and wood product comprising multiple layers which are glued together between plies (paragraph 0013). Since Wimmer teaches a layered wood product and Bolton discloses controlling an amount of glue applied to such a product (Bolton, paragraph 0058), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have combined the teachings of Bolton with those of Wimmer to use the degree of gluing as a factor when determining the emissions of the wood product in the mathematical model to better monitor the production process and the emissions therefrom.
Regarding claims 4 and 5, in combination, the parameters of the wood product are used to determine a VOC. Although not specifically disclosed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have included any parameters in the mathematical model which could affect the emission of VOCs including a molar ratio (or mass) of a glue product or the number of layers which comprise the glue since both may increase the amount of offgassing.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wimmer and Bolton as applied to claim 3 above and further in view of Andre et al. US 2009/0230306.
Regarding claim 6, Wimmer and Bolton disclose the claimed invention including monitoring of the outgassing of the wood product for VOCs such as formaldehyde but do not explicitly teach the amount of urea added to product layers being fed to the mathematical model. Andre discloses a system and method for detecting an emission of urea-formaldehyde from a wood product over time. It would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have combined the teachings of Andre with those of Wimmer and Bolton in order to provide the urea value to the mathematical model since urea-formaldehyde resin is commonly used in the manufacture of layered wood products and would need to be monitored for safety reasons.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wimmer and Dobner DE 102019144035.
Regarding claim 10, Wimmer teaches the claimed invention including the device for monitoring a manufacture of wood-based products with respect to the emission of volatile organic compounds but does not explicitly disclose the transmitting unit, receiving unit connected to an extraction line via pipe sections with a flushing device associated with the pipe sections as claimed. Dobner teaches a method and device for determining a concentration of a volatile substance during the production of a wood-based product (page 4), including a transmitting unit and a receiving unit (the system uses a laser spectrometer which would have both a transmitter and a receiver), and at least one flushing device (suction device, page 2) such that the sample gas would be sampled at a measuring point 41 which is within a measuring chamber 42 of an extraction hood 28.
Regarding claim 11, the transmitter unit of Dobner comprises a laser (laser spectrometer, page 2) which can be for a TDLS method.
Regarding claims 12 and 13, the flushing device of Dobner has pipes (connected to extraction hood) which can be supplied with compressed air in an alternating manner.
Regarding claim 16, Wimmer teaches the claimed invention but does not explicitly disclose the protective housing with a transmitter and receiver unit arranged on opposite sides of the protective housing and an air guiding device associated with the protective housing. Dobner teaches a device for detecting a concentration of a volatile organic compound in which a housing is present in the form of an extraction hood which includes guides the air associated therewith for extraction. Dobner further teaches a detector including a transmitting unit and a receiving unit in the form of a laser spectrometer.
Regarding claim 17, in combination, the transmitter and receiver of Dobner would be in a plane above the wood-based products since they are in an extraction hood.
Regarding claims 18 and 19, the system of Dobner includes a suction hood 26 which would require a fan for operation as was known in the art. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have placed the fan in any desired location such as in the housing wall above the transmitter and receiver units in order to withdraw the air from the hood and past the sensing elements since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950).
Regarding claim 20, the transmitter unit of Dobner comprises a laser (laser spectrometer, page 2) which can be for a TDLS method.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 14 and 15 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: with regard to claim 14, the prior art cited fails to teach the specifics of the flushing pipes inserted into the pipe sections for connecting the transmitter unit and the receiver unit to the extraction line. The flushing system taught by Dobner is silent to such an arrangement as it is mainly located within the extraction hood. With regard to claim 15, the flushing pipe having a conical design that protrudes into the extraction line, thereby preventing product parts from entering the flushing pipe and the pipe section during operation.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The remaining references cited are provided for general teaching of wood product manufacturing and detection of volatile organic compounds which may emit therefrom.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Mark A. Shabman whose telephone number is (571)272-8589. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-4:30 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, Laura Martin can be reached at 571-272-2160. 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.
/MARK A SHABMAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855
1 A machine translation has been provided which will be referenced herein.