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 .
Election/Restrictions
The election has been treated as an election without traverse because no statement was made indicating whether the election was made with or without traverse. Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, Claims 1-11, in the reply filed on March 12, 2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 12-20 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected apparatus, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on March 12, 2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
Claims 1-3 and 7-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jacobsen (PGPub 2004/0065507 cited in IDS) in view of Wilson (PGPub 2018/0119338 cited in IDS) and Balthes (PGPub 2003/0087572 cited in IDS).
Regarding Claim 1, Jacobsen teaches a method for manufacturing a hemp-based building product or material (Abstract; [0032]- discussing hemp), the method comprising:
forming a hemp-based multilayer structure [0020], including
a first film layer ([0020]- (b) a first synthetic polymeric film layer),
applying a hemp strand layer to the first film layer ([0020]- (c) batt; [0031]-[0032]- insulative fibers of batt; [0032]- discussing hemp),
applying a filler material layer to the hemp strand layer ([0020]- (c) batt; [0031]-[0032]- synthetic binder fibers of batt; [0031]- binder fibers can be added to a web of insulative fibers during the batt-forming step),
applying a second film layer to the filler material layer ([0020]- (d) second synthetic polymeric film layer);
pressing the formed hemp-based multilayer structure ([0046]-[0047]- heated nip roller press and heat the composite); and
heating the formed hemp-based multilayer structure ([0046]-[0047]- heated nip roller press and heat the composite).
Jacobsen teaches the layers are adhered to each other [0020] but does not specify applying a first, second, and third solution to respective layers wherein the subsequent layer is applied to the previous layer with the corresponding solution.
Wilson teaches an alternative method of forming a hemp-based building product or material (Abstract) wherein the hemp fibers are soaked in adhesive solution (Fig. 7; [0034]) in order to improve hardness of natural hemp [0011].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Jacobsen to include soaking the hemp fibers in adhesive as taught by Wilson with reasonable expectation of success to improve hardness of natural hemp [0011] thus meeting the instant limitations of applying a second solution to the hemp strand layer and applying a filler material layer to the hemp strand layer with the second solution.
Balthes teaches an alternative method of forming a hemp-based [0007] composite (Abstract) wherein adhesive is applied between each layer [0077] to create a sufficient bond between layers of the composite [0077].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the combination of Jacobsen and Wilson to include applying adhesive between each layer of the composite as taught by Balthes with reasonable expectation of success to create a sufficient bond between layers of the composite [0077] thus meeting the instant limitations of applying a first solution to a first film layer, applying a hemp strand layer to the first film layer with the first solution, applying a third solution to the filler material layer, and applying a second film layer to the filler material layer with the third solution.
Regarding Claim 2, Jacobsen further teaches at least one of the first film layer and the second film layer comprises a vinyl polymer or a paper layer [0040].
Regarding Claim 3, Jacobsen further teaches applying at least one additional filler material layer before applying the second film layer ([0020]- scrim sheet).
Regarding Claim 7, Balthes further teaches the first solution comprises a tacky solution ([0077]- discussing adhesives).
Regarding Claims 8 and 9, Wilson further teaches the second solution comprises an adhesive solution wherein the adhesive solution comprises a bioadhesive ([0034]- Agricultural based adhesives may include but are not limited to; soy, hemp, wheat or flower).
Regarding Claim 10, Bathes further teaches the third solution comprises an adhesive solution ([0077]- discussing adhesives).
Claims 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jacobsen (PGPub 2004/0065507 cited in IDS) in view of Wilson (PGPub 2018/0119338 cited in IDS) and Balthes (PGPub 2003/0087572 cited in IDS) and Lavoie (PGPub 2006/0148363).
Regarding Claim 4, Jacobsen, Wilson and Balthes do not specify applying at least one additional hemp strand layer.
Lavoie teaches an alternative method of forming a hemp-based [0012] composite (Abstract) comprising a plurality of layers of lignocellulosic strands [0004] in order to achieve a desired composite strength [0005].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the combination of Jacobsen, Wilson, and Balthes to include a plurality of layers of lignocellulosic strands as taught by Lavoie with reasonable expectation of success to achieve a desired composite strength [0005] thus meeting the instant limitation of applying at least one additional hemp strand layer.
Regarding Claim 5, Lavoie further teaches the at least one additional hemp strand layer comprises hemp fiber strands oriented at an angle with respect to hemp fiber strands in the hemp strand layer ([0005]- discussing oriented strands) in order to achieve a desired composite strength [0005].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the combination of Jacobsen, Wilson, and Balthes to include oriented layers of lignocellulosic strands as taught by Lavoie with reasonable expectation of success to achieve a desired composite strength [0005].
Regarding Claim 6, Lavoie further teaches the angle is about 90-degrees ([0010]- discussing cross directionally oriented strands).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jacobsen (PGPub 2004/0065507 cited in IDS) in view of Wilson (PGPub 2018/0119338 cited in IDS) and Balthes (PGPub 2003/0087572 cited in IDS) and Wescott et al (PGPub 2005/0222358 cited in IDS).
Regarding Claim 11, Balthes does not specify a type of adhesive being used to comprise a bioadhesive.
Wescott teaches an alternative adhesive for use in the preparation of composites (Abstract) wherein the adhesive solution is a bioadhesive [0101] in order to utilize a lower volatility adhesive with lower costs [0101].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the combination of Jacobsen, Wilson, and Balthes to include a bioadhesive as taught by Wescott with reasonable expectation of success to utilize a lower volatility adhesive with lower costs [0101].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Adrianna Konves whose telephone number is (571)272-3958. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00-4:00 MST (Arizona).
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, Abbas Rashid can be reached at (571) 270-7457. 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.
/A.K./Examiner, Art Unit 1748 3/27/26
/Abbas Rashid/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1748