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
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group II, claims 8-17 in the reply filed on 11/30/2025 is acknowledged. Claims 1-7 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Specification/IDS
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: The listing of references in the specification is not a proper information disclosure statement. 37 CFR 1.98(b) requires a list of all patents, publications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office, and MPEP § 609.04(a) states, "the list may not be incorporated into the specification but must be submitted in a separate paper." Therefore, unless the references have been cited by the examiner on form PTO-892, they have not been considered. There are references [U.S. Pat. Nos. 3,164,511, 4,364,984, 5,435,976, 5,470,631, 5,525,394, 5,718,786, 6,461,743, and U.S. patent application Ser. No. 17/747,930] listed at ¶ 0007 of the specification which are not found on an IDS. 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.
Claim(s) 8 and 12-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) or (a)(2) as being anticipated by EP 2397291 A1 issued to Schlusen et al.
Regarding Claim 8, where Applicant seeks a fiber-reinforced wood composite product produced according to claim 1, comprising: two or more strand layers,
each strand layer comprising a plurality of wood strands; a first fiber reinforcement layer positioned between two adjacent strand layers and attached thereto by heat and pressure; wherein the fiber reinforcement layer comprises one or more of: a plurality of fibers; fiberglass; and a carbon fiber mat; Applicant is directed to the teachings of Schlusen et al., who disclose making multilayered fiber-reinforced wood composite products comprising: two or more strand layers, each strand layer comprising a plurality of wood strands [¶ 0024 and claim 1]; a first fiber reinforcement layer positioned between two adjacent strand layers and attached thereto by heat and pressure [¶¶ 0025 and 0059]; wherein the fiber reinforcement layer comprises one or more of: a plurality of fibers; fiberglass: and a carbon fiber mat [¶0025] to create oriented strand boards.
Regarding Claim 12, where Applicant seeks that the product of claim 8, wherein the fiber reinforcement layer comprises loose fiber elements bonded together and to the adjacent strand layers by said heat and pressure; Applicant is directed to rationale for claim 8.
Regarding Claim 13, where Applicant seeks that the product of claim 8, wherein there are a bottom strand layer, a core strand layer, and a top strand layer; Applicant is directed to rationale for claim 8.
Regarding Claim 14, where Applicant seeks that the product of claim 13, wherein the first fiber reinforcement layer is positioned between the core strand layer and the top strand layer; Applicant is directed to rationale for claim 8.
Regarding Claim 15, where Applicant seeks that the product of claim 13, wherein the first fiber reinforcement layer is positioned between the core strand layer and the bottom strand layer; Applicant is directed to rationale for claim 8.
Regarding Claim 16, where Applicant seeks that the product of claim 8, further comprising a second fiber reinforcement layer, wherein one of the fiber reinforcement layers is positioned between the core strand layer and the top strand layer, and the other one of the fiber reinforcement layers is positioned between the core strand layer and the bottom strand layer; Applicant is directed to rationale for claim 8.
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.
Claim(s) 9-11 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EP 2397291A1 issued to Schulsen et al. as applied to claims 8 and 12-16 above, and further in view of USPN 5,725,929 A issued to Cooke et al.
Schlusen et al. disclose making multilayered fiber-reinforced wood composite products comprising: two or more strand layers, each strand layer comprising a plurality of wood strands [¶ 0024 and claim 1]; a first fiber reinforcement layer positioned between two adjacent strand layers and attached thereto by heat and pressure [¶¶ 0025 and 0059]; wherein the fiber reinforcement layer comprises one or more of: a plurality of fibers; fiberglass: and a carbon fiber mat [¶0025] to create oriented strand boards.
Schlusen et al. teach that the reinforcement layer is in a fibrous form but fail to disclose the structure of the fibrous form, such as those sought in claim 9-11 and 17.
This is remedied by the teachings of Cooke et al. at col. 2, lines 33 to 57 who teach that a variety of fiber architectures in the sheet materials may be used including woven, braided and knitted fabric and random mat and unidirectional fibers. Therefore, a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found it obvious to have employed the different forms of fiber architecture as taught by Cooke et al as the fiber form in Schlusen et al reinforcement layer. One would have been motivated to do so as different fiber architectures can provide improved strength and stiffness in various directions, enhancing the overall mechanical properties of the composite material.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. USPUB 202000270871A1 issued to Merrick teaches making integrated structural sheathing panels [¶¶ 0008,0019, 0026-032] which comprise one or more wood strand layers [¶ 0003], coating layers [¶ 0021] and first resin impregnated paper overlay layers [¶0026] and second resin impregnated layers [¶ 0027]. Heat and pressure are applied to these layers to bring them together to form a composite panel.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Arti Singh-Pandey whose telephone number is (571)272-1483. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8:30-5:00 and 8:00-10:00.
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, Duane Smith can be reached at 571-272-1166. 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.
/Arti Singh-Pandey/
Primary Patent Examiner
Art Unit 1759
asp