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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS)s submitted on 04/24/2024 and 09/06/2024 have been considered by the examiner.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election without traverse of Group l, a system for manufacturing a cardboard fiber composite, claims 1-13, in the reply filed on 06/29/2026 is acknowledged. Claims 14-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention.
Claim Objections
Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informalities: Applicant has been advised to add a period at the end of the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Gorman (WO 2005/023499 A1).
With respect to claim 11, Gorman teaches a system for manufacturing a fiber composite, comprising:
a multi-stage fiber refining system (“a Wiley mill (a hammer mill) fitted with screen having apertures of 6.35 mm (1/4 inch). During subsequent milling, the straw was screened through a 3.16 mm (1/8 inch) sieve.”, pg 6 li 31-pg 7 li 1) configured to generate milled fiber pulp by reducing fiber material into a predetermined particle size threshold suitable for further processing (“The stubble was reduced in size to smaller fractions using a chopping action… This produced two fractions…”, pg 6 li 29-pg 7 li 4);
a resin treatment system (“an airless spray”) configured to apply a resin into a blending apparatus (“A binder was used, which has the ability to "wet" the surface of the stubble to improve the binding process…This was applied to rice straw fractions, each size being mixed with the binder in separate operations using an airless spray in a tumbling drum.”, pg 7 li 9-13);
the blending apparatus for blending the fiber pulp with the resin to generate resin-applied fiber material, wherein the blending apparatus is configured to distribute the resin to within a predefined threshold of uniformity (“This was applied to rice straw fractions, each size being mixed with the binder in separate operations using an airless spray in a tumbling drum.”, pg 7 li 12-13; “each fibre is substantially coated with resin about its outside surface.”, pg 4 li 10); and
a press forming system (“forming box” and “the heated platen press”) capable of shaping the resin-applied fiber material into fiber composites of multiple shapes and densities using heat pressing (“The blended rice straw furnish was hand-laid into mattresses in a 55x55 cm forming box and transferred to the heated platen press, sandwiched between non-stick mylar sheets (0.1 mm thick) and aluminium caul plates (2.5 mm thick).”, pg 7 li 15-18; “Panels were created using a range of thicknesses and varying proportions of lamina thickness”, pg 8 li 1-2; “the panel may be any suitable size or density, however in preferred embodiments the thickness of the panels lie in the range of approximately 3 - 50mm, and in one preferred form the panel thickness is approximately 15mm and the density is within a range of approximately 500 - 900kg/m3”, pg 5 li 6-9).
With respect to claim 12, Gorman as applied to claim 11 above further teaches that the multi-stage fiber refining system generates milled fiber pulp by utilizing a mechanical cutting mechanism (“a Wiley mill (a hammer mill)”, pg 6 li 31).
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 1, 3, 4, 7 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gorman (WO 2005/023499 A1) in view of Derbyshire et al. (US 2010/0310893 A1).
With respect to claim 1, Gorman teaches a system for manufacturing a fiber composite, comprising:
a multi-stage fiber refining system (“a Wiley mill (a hammer mill) fitted with screen having apertures of 6.35 mm (1/4 inch). During subsequent milling, the straw was screened through a 3.16 mm (1/8 inch) sieve.”, pg 6 li 31-pg 7 li 1) configured to generate milled fibers by reducing the stubble into a predetermined particle size threshold suitable for further processing (“The stubble was reduced in size to smaller fractions using a chopping action… This produced two fractions…”, pg 6 li 29-pg 7 li 4);
a resin dispensing system (“an airless spray”) including a motorized airless sprayer configured to generate resin-applied fibers by atomizing and applying a resin into a mixing system (“A binder was used, which has the ability to "wet" the surface of the stubble to improve the binding process…This was applied to rice straw fractions, each size being mixed with the binder in separate operations using an airless spray in a tumbling drum.”, pg 7 li 9-13);
the mixing system comprising a mixer, configured to blend the resin-applied fibers with the resin to a predefined distribution threshold (“This was applied to rice straw fractions, each size being mixed with the binder in separate operations using an airless spray in a tumbling drum.”, pg 7 li 12-13; “each fibre is substantially coated with resin about its outside surface.”, pg 4 li 10); and
a heat press forming system (“forming box” and “the heated platen press”), configured to form the blended resin-applied fibers into a molded fiber composite material of a predefined shape and density (“The blended rice straw furnish was hand-laid into mattresses in a 55x55 cm forming box and transferred to the heated platen press, sandwiched between non-stick mylar sheets (0.1 mm thick) and aluminium caul plates (2.5 mm thick).”, pg 7 li 15-18).
Gorman teaches the system for manufacturing a fiber composite using crop stubble (pg 1 li 30) or timber (pg 2 li 9), but is silent to carboard. However, it is noted that the limitation “carboard” is an intended use, since the system of Gorman is capable of manufacturing a carboard fiber composite using carboard. Likewise, it is noted that the limitation “a bio-based epoxy resin” is an intended use, since the system of Gorman is capable of dispensing a bio-based epoxy resin. The Courts have held that apparatus claims must be structurally distinguishable from the prior art in terms of structure, not function. See In re Danley, 120 USPQ 528, 531 (CCPA 1959); and Hewlett-Packard Co. V. Bausch and Lomb, Inc., 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (see MPEP §§ 2114 and 2173.05(g)). Furthermore, “[i]nclusion of material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims.” See In re Young, 75 F.2d *>996<, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935) (as restated in In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963)) (see MPEP § 2115).
Gorman as applied in the embodiment above teaches the tumbling drum (pg 7 li 13) as the mixer, but Gorman further teaches that blending is preferably performed in a paddle style blender or high velocity blow line blender, or a tumbling drum, or dry air mix in an airless spray blender, so that each fibre is substantially coated with resin about its outside surface (pg 4 li 8-10), thus one would have found it obvious to provide a paddle style blender with the airless spray instead of the tumbling drum in order to substantially coat each fibre with resin about its outside surface.
Gorman further teaches that hot pressing is carried in multiple daylight presses out (pg 4 li 24), but does not explicitly teach a heat press forming system comprising at least one mechanical shim.
In the same field of endeavor, composite materials including wood or other cellulosic fibers and a binding agent, Derbyshire teaches that the sample was cut into quarters, the quarters can be stacked on foil and both the top and bottom covered with foil, 3 mm shims can be placed on a 400° F. Carver® press (top and bottom at 400° F.), the foil covered sample was placed on platens, with shims optionally used to control sample thickness, day light was closed and the sheet pressed at 20,000 gauge pressure for around 1 minute, the hot sample was carefully removed and allowed to cool (Pa [0179]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Gorman with the teachings of Derbyshire to provide shims in the heated platen press in order to control sample thickness.
With respect to claim 3, Gorman as applied to claim 1 above teaches that the plurality of blades comprises paddle blades (“a paddle style blender”, pg 4 li 8).
With respect to claim 4, Gorman as applied to claim 1 above teaches that the heat press forming system further comprises a stationary mold (“forming box”) for the formation of the resin-applied cardboard fibers into the molded fiber composite material (“The blended rice straw furnish was hand-laid into mattresses in a 55x55 cm forming box and transferred to the heated platen press, sandwiched between non-stick mylar sheets (0.1 mm thick) and aluminium caul plates (2.5 mm thick). Hot pressing was carried out using platen temperatures of 200°C for 7.5 minutes using position control. Target panel thickness was 15 mm, with a target density of approximately 675 kg/m3.”, pg 7 li 15-20).
With respect to claim 7, Derbyshire as applied in the combination claim 1 above teaches that the heat press forming system is configured to use a plurality of mechanical shims comprising the mechanical shim (“3 mm shims can be placed on a 400° F. Carver® press (top and bottom at 400° F.), the foil covered sample was placed on platens, with shims optionally used to control sample thickness”, Pa [0179]). It is noted that the limitation “each of the plurality of mechanical shims is configurable to produce fiber composite materials of different thicknesses and densities” is an intended use since the system taught by the prior art is capable of the claimed operation. The Courts have held that the manner of operating an apparatus does not differentiate an apparatus claim from the prior art, if the prior art apparatus teaches all of the structural limitations of the claim. See Ex Parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (BPAI 1987).
With respect to claim 10, Gorman as applied to claim 1 above further teaches that hot pressing is carried in multiple daylight presses out using platen temperatures in a range of approximately 150 - 250°C, for a time period of between approximately 3 and 10 minutes (pg 4 li 24-26). It is noted that the limitation “the heat press forming system is further configured to: (i) apply a predefined compression pressure and (ii) adjust compression duration based on a desired thickness and a desired final density of the molded fiber composite material” is an intended use since the system taught by the prior art is capable of the claimed operation. The Courts have held that the manner of operating an apparatus does not differentiate an apparatus claim from the prior art, if the prior art apparatus teaches all of the structural limitations of the claim. See Ex Parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (BPAI 1987).
Claims 2 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gorman (WO 2005/023499 A1) in view of Derbyshire et al. (US 2010/0310893 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hoy et al. (US 5,203,843).
With respect to claim 2, Gorman as applied to claim 1 above teaches the airless spray (pg 4 li 9), but is silent to a compressed air system configured to optimize application of the resin ensuring uniform coating.
In the same field of endeavor, a liquid coatings application to wood, paper, etc (co 13 li 11-17), Hoy teaches that air assisted airless spray combines features of air spray and airless spray, it uses both compressed air and high pressure drop across the orifice to atomize the coating formulation and to shape the liquid spray, typically under milder conditions than each type of atomization is generated by itself (co 1 li 53-58), and the invention is directed to a liquid spray process to which compressed air is used to assist formation and atomization of the liquid spray and to modify the shape of the liquid spray (co 5 li 49-53) such that the liquid mixture will flow to produce a uniform, smooth film on the substrate (co 8 li 61-63).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Gorman with the teachings of Hoy to substitute the air assisted airless spray (which implies a compressed air system) for the airless spray in order to assist formation and atomization of the liquid spray and to modify the shape of the liquid spray.
With respect to claim 9, Gorman as applied to claim 1 above further teaches the resin dispensing system (“airless spray”, pg 4 li 9), but does not explicitly that the resin dispensing system is further configured to: (i) operate within a predefined pressure range, (ii) achieve a predefined effective atomization particle size range, and (iii) generate a desired spray pattern fan width.
In the same field of endeavor, a liquid coatings application to wood, paper, etc (co 13 li 11-17), Hoy teaches that air assisted airless spray combines features of air spray and airless spray, it uses both compressed air and high pressure drop across the orifice to atomize the coating formulation and to shape the liquid spray, typically under milder conditions than each type of atomization is generated by itself (co 1 li 53-58), and the invention is directed to a liquid spray process to which compressed air is used to assist formation and atomization of the liquid spray and to modify the shape of the liquid spray (co 5 li 49-53) such that the liquid mixture will flow to produce a uniform, smooth film on the substrate (co 8 li 61-63). Hoy further teaches that liquid:spray droplets are produced which generally have an average diameter of one micron or greater, small spray droplets are desirable to vent the supercritical fluid from the spray droplet before impacting the substrate, and small spray droplets also give higher quality finishes (co 13 li 1-10), and wider fan width produced a better coating (co 18 li 10).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Gorman with the teachings of Hoy to substitute the air assisted airless spray (which implies a compressed air system) for the airless spray in order to assist formation and atomization of the liquid spray and to modify the shape of the liquid spray.
Claims 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gorman (WO 2005/023499 A1) in view of Derbyshire et al. (US 2010/0310893 A1) as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Gonzalez (US 2019/0299570 A1).
With respect to claim 5, the combination as applied to claim 1 above does not explicitly teaches that the heat press forming system further comprises an oil pump configured to pump thermal oil into walls of the stationary mold to control temperature during the formation of the resin-applied cardboard fibers into the molded fiber composite material.
In the same field of endeavor, production of wood fiber or particle boards or panels, Gonzalez teaches that the processes aim to obtain products with the best dimensional stability possible, to achieve this aim, one key aspect is the lack of differential stresses that may appear in the presence of warping, this is one of the causes for which production processes look for symmetry with respect to the plane passing through the center of the thickness of the board, and one of examples that demonstrate symmetry in the production processes is thermal energy input through the heating plates is symmetrical as a result of common thermal oil input through the same pump to the upper and lower plate (Pa [0008]-[0009]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Gorman in view of Derbyshire with the teachings of Gonzalez to provide the thermal oil pump and symmetrical thermal energy input through the heating plates for the purpose of dimensional stability of the product.
With respect to claim 6, Gorman as applied to claim 5 above further teaches that hot pressing is carried in multiple daylight presses out using platen temperatures in a range of approximately 150 - 250°C, for a time period of between approximately 3 and 10 minutes (pg 4 li 24-26). It is noted that the limitation “the heat press forming system is configured to control an active temperature of the stationary mold to within a predefined range depending on a predefined set of requirements and properties of the bio-based epoxy resin” is an intended use since the system taught by the prior art is capable of the claimed operation. The Courts have held that the manner of operating an apparatus does not differentiate an apparatus claim from the prior art, if the prior art apparatus teaches all of the structural limitations of the claim. See Ex Parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (BPAI 1987).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gorman (WO 2005/023499 A1) in view of Derbyshire et al. (US 2010/0310893 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Brewin (US 2024/0114844 A1).
With respect to claim 8, Gorman as applied to claim 1 above further teaches that the multi-stage fiber refining system is further configured to: (i) adjust a particle size of the milled cardboard fibers to a predefined particle size range (“The stubble was reduced in size to smaller fractions using a chopping action (without creating a hollow drinking-straw effect), in the form of being passed through a Wiley mill (a hammer mill) fitted with screen having apertures of 6.35 mm (1/4 inch). During subsequent milling, the straw was screened through a 3.16 mm (1/8 inch) sieve. This produced two fractions: firstly, a coarse fraction for 'core' material which provides strength and secondly a fine fraction for use in panel faces to provide an acceptable finish to a consumer.”, pg 6 li 29-pg 7 li 4). It is noted that the limitation “(iii) accommodate different material feed rates to suit various production requirements” is an intended use, since the system taught by the prior art is capable of the claimed operation. The Courts have held that the manner of operating an apparatus does not differentiate an apparatus claim from the prior art, if the prior art apparatus teaches all of the structural limitations of the claim. See Ex Parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (BPAI 1987).
The combination does not explicitly teach that the multi-stage fiber refining system is further configured to (ii) operate within a variable rotation per-minute (RPM) range.
In the same field of endeavor, a system for processing a bale of straw, Brewin teaches that the grinding assembly comprises a hammer mill comprising a feed chute/hopper, a grinding chamber equipped with a grinder member comprising a plurality of grinder hammers attached to shaft configured to rotate at variable speed, wherein the loose straw material is crushed by a combination of hammer blows, collision with the walls of the grinding chamber, and particle-on-particle impacts (Pa [0054]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Gorman with the teachings of Brewin to substitute the grinding assembly for Gorman’s hammer mill in order to crush the loose material by a combination of hammer blows, collision with the walls of the grinding chamber, and particle-on-particle impacts.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gorman (WO 2005/023499 A1) as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Chatzakis et al. (US 2024/0400854 A1).
With respect to claim 13, Gorman as applied to claim 11 above further teaches that the adhesive may take any suitable form, however it is preferred that phenol formaldehyde (PF) resins are utilised to reduce safety hazards from use of adhesives such as VOCs, isocyanates and other hazardous and carcinogenic compounds such as MDIs (pg 3 li 23-25), but is silent to a curing station configured to employ at least one selected from a group consisting of UV light, heat, and chemical curing agents to stabilize the fiber composites before final processing.
In the same field of endeavor, coatings, Chatzakis teaches that coatings provide gas/moisture barriers, grease/oil/stain resistance, corrosion protection, antimicrobial/antioxidant functions, attractive appearance, and more (Pa [0002]), coated substrate comprises a substrate (Pa [0102]), and the substrate comprises paper, paperboard, cardboard, or wood (Pa [0104], [0107]). Chatzakis further teaches epoxy coatings comprising a (co)polymer derived from: an epoxide; and an epoxide curing agent (Pa [0092]), the epoxide comprises an epoxidized biomass oil (Pa [0093]), the epoxide curing agent is derived from the extracted biomass oil, the epoxidized biomass oil, or a combination thereof (Pa [0097]), the epoxy coating is bio-based, biodegradable, or a combination thereof (Pa [0099]), and curing is performed in an oven at 180° C. for 24 hours (Pa [0184]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Gorman with the teachings of Chatzakis to substitute the epoxide and the epoxide curing agent for the adhesive and provide the oven for curing for the purpose of biodegradability/composability.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YUNJU KIM whose telephone number is (571)270-1146. The examiner can normally be reached on 8:00-4:00 EST M-Th; Flexing Fri.
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, Christina Johnson can be reached on 571-272-1176. 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.
/YUNJU KIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1742
Prosecution Insights