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) submitted on 03/13/2026 has been considered by the examiner.
Response to Amendment
The Amendments filed 04/08/2026 responsive to the Office Action filed 01/22/2026 has been entered. Claims 42, 46, 49, 51, 55, 56 and 61 have been amended. Claims 52-54 and 57-60 have been canceled. New claim 62 has been added. Claims 42-51, 55-56 and 61-62 are pending in this application.
Response to Arguments
Claim 42 has been amended to address the indefiniteness, thus the rejection of claim 42 under 112(b) has been withdrawn.
Claims 54 and 57 have been canceled, thus the rejection of claims 54 and 57 under 112(b) has been moot.
Applicant's arguments, filed 04/08/2026 in pages 7-14, with respect to the rejection of claims 42-51, 55-56 and 61 under 103 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the combination applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 42, 43, 46-50, 55, 56, 61 and 62 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Allaert et al. (US 2023/0099498).
With respect to claim 42, Allaert teaches a process for the production of a wood fiberboard (“a process for the production of …MDF board or HDF board.”, Pa [0016]),
wherein the process comprises the step in which refined material from recycled wood fiberboards is wetted, heated and pressurized using steam by introducing the refined material from recycled wood fiberboards into a discontinuous pressure vessel; and injecting steam into the pressure vessel (“the MDF and/or HDF board material is wetted, heated—preferably using steam—and pressurized.”, Pa [0016]; “the heating by steam is carried out by introducing … the recycled MDF and/or the recycled HDF board material into a pressure vessel—preferably …a discontinuous pressure vessel—and injecting steam (preferably wet steam or superheated steam) into this pressure vessel.”, Pa [0029]);
wherein the process comprises the step in which this material is kept under pressure and temperature for a certain amount of time (“This material is kept under pressure and at an elevated temperature for a certain time.”, Pa [0016]), followed by the step of reducing the pressure of this material by at least 3 bar; wherein during the step of reducing the pressure of the refined material from recycled wood fiberboards, steam explosion occurs in the refined material (“the steam explosion step is performed in a discontinuous process, wherein the wetted, heated and pressurized particle board material, MDF and/or HDF board material is situated in a receptacle… the pressure drop during the steam explosion is at least 3 bar”, Pa [0037]);
wherein a flap or valve of the pressure vessel is opened, as a result of which a sudden pressure drop occurs which causes said steam explosion; wherein the pressure drop during the steam explosion is at least 3 bar (“a valve of the receptacle is opened, as a result of which the rapid pressure drop occurs which causes the steam explosion… the pressure drop during the steam explosion is at least 3 bar”, Pa [0037]);
wherein this process comprises the step of supplying the recycled wood fibers as feedstock in a production line for producing wood fiberboard (“The process comprises the step of supplying the recycled chips and/or the recycled wood fibers as base material in a production process for particle board, MDF board or HDF board.”, Pa [0016]).
Allaert further teaches that after this pressure reduction, the refined material is transformed into recycled wood fibers; and after the pressure reduction step and prior to the step of supplying the recycled wood fibers in the production line for producing wood fiberboard, the process comprises the step of separating off water vapor, hot gasses, heavy constituents from the recycled wood fibers (“one or more separation units, for example for separating off water vapor and hot gasses (for example by means of a cyclone) and/or for separating off heavy constituents—preferably by means of the force of gravity.”, Pa [0057]), but does not explicitly teach that after this pressure reduction, the refined material is transformed into recycled wood fibers, and a fraction of wood fiber clumps and any other impurities which are separated off from the recycled wood fibers. However, since Allaert’s invention relates to achieving a better separation of the recycled material with the steam explosion (Pa [0030]) for using the recycled chips and/or the recycled wood fibers as base material in a production process for fiber board (Pa [0016]), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to perform separating off any remaining clumps and impurities from the recycled wood fibers after the steam explosion in order to supply the well-separated recycled wood fibers to a production process for fiber board.
With respect to claim 43, Allaert as applied to claim 42 above further teaches that the step in which refined material from recycled wood fiberboards is wetted, heated and pressurized using steam; this material is brought to a pressure of at least 4 bar (“a pressure of more than 5 bar”, Pa [0027]).
With respect to claim 46, Allaert as applied to claim 42 above further teaches that a duration of the step in which refined material from recycled wood fiberboards is wetted, heated and pressurized using steam is at least 15 seconds (“for a time of at least 15 seconds”, Pa [0027]). Even if Allaert does not explicitly teach the claimed range of the duration, in the case where claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. (See MPEP 2144.05 (I)).
With respect to claim 47, Allaert as applied to claim 42 above further teaches that the step of reducing the pressure of the material is carried out in a time span of less than 1 minute (“during the steam explosion step, the pressure expands in less than 3 seconds”, Pa [0040]).
With respect to claim 48, Allaert as applied to claim 42 above further teaches that in the step in which refined material from recycled wood fiberboards is wetted, heated and pressurized using steam, the refined material is heated to a temperature lower than 240°C (“the MDF and/or HDF board material is heated to a temperature of less than 240° C”, Pa [0026]).
With respect to claim 49, Allaert as applied to claim 42 above further teaches that in the step in which refined material from recycled wood fiberboards is wetted, heated and pressurized using steam, the heating is achieved using steam by means of steam injection in the pressure vessel (“the heating by steam is carried out by introducing … the recycled MDF and/or the recycled HDF board material into a pressure vessel—preferably …a discontinuous pressure vessel—and injecting steam (preferably wet steam or superheated steam) into this pressure vessel.”, Pa [0029]).
With respect to claim 50, Allaert as applied to claim 42 above further teaches that the steps in which refined material from recycled wood fiberboards is wetted, heated and pressurized using steam; and/or in which this material is kept under pressure and temperature for a certain amount of time, and/or in which the pressure of the material is reduced, are carried out in batch (“the steam explosion step is performed in a discontinuous process, wherein the wetted, heated and pressurized particle board material, MDF and/or HDF board material is situated in a receptacle, and wherein a valve of the receptacle is opened, as a result of which the rapid pressure drop occurs which causes the steam explosion. Such embodiments make it possible to suitably adjust the process conditions for each batch”, Pa [0037]).
With respect to claim 55, Allaert as applied to claim 42 above further teaches that the recycled wood fibers, without them having been treated with adhesive in advance, are mixed with adhesive-treated wood fibers; and are introduced as feedstock in the production line for producing wood fiberboard (“the recycled chips and/or recycled wood fibers are not coated with adhesive, and that these are used as part of the base material in the production process of particle board or MDF or HDF boards without having been coated with adhesive. In this production process, these recycled chips and/or the recycled wood fibers which have not been coated with adhesive may be mixed with chips or wood fibers which have been coated with adhesive.”, Pa [0050]); wherein a mass percentage of recycled wood fibers in the combination of the recycled wood fibers and the adhesive-treated wood fibers is less than 20 (“the proportion of recycled base material of the combined recycled base material and new, adhesive-coated base material is …more preferably less than 20 percent by weight”, Pa [0059]).
With respect to claim 56, Allaert as applied to claim 42 above further teaches that the recycled wood fibers are treated with adhesive, chosen from a list of: urea-formaldehyde adhesive, melamine-urea-formaldehyde adhesive, phenol adhesive, or MDI or pMDI adhesive, or using adhesive compositions which comprise one or more of the adhesives mentioned (“the recycled chips and/or recycled wood fibers are coated with adhesive…”, Pa [0051]).
With respect to claim 61, Allaert as applied to claim 42 above further teaches that in the step of reducing the pressure, a ratio of the pressure drop to the duration of the reduction of the pressure is greater than 0.25 bar/second (“in 1 second or less, from 10 bar to 5 bar”, Pa [0079]). In the case where claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. (See MPEP 2144.05 (I)).
With respect to claim 62, Allaert as applied to claim 42 above further teaches that dust is separated off after the mechanical breaking down, for example by means of sieving, by means of rinsing or by means of wind-sieving (Pa [0021]), and dust is separated off in this step, or optionally after this step, for example by means of sieving or by means of another suitable technique (Pa [0077]). Thus, one would have found it obvious to perform separating off any remaining clumps and impurities from the recycled wood fibers by means of sieving or by means of wind-sieving in order to supply the well-separated recycled wood fibers to a production process for fiber board.
Claims 44, 45 and 51 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Allaert et al. (US 2023/0099498) as applied to claims 42 and 50, and further in view of Fechter et al. (US 2023/0002584-corresponding to WO2021/112749 of record).
With respect to claims 44 and 51, Allaert as applied to claims 42 and 50 above further teaches that the material undergoes a mechanical dewatering process, for example by pressing—preferably between rollers—or by centrifuging, after the step in which the particle board material, the MDF and/or HDF board material has been wetted, heated—preferably using steam—and pressurized, and if the process comprises the step of steam explosion of the wetted and pressurized particle board material, MDF and/or HDF board material, the optional mechanical dewatering process is performed after the steam explosion step (Pa [0044]), but does not explicitly teach that liquid water is continuously or periodically discharged during or after the step of reducing the pressure; and/or during the step in which refined material from recycled wood fiberboards is wetted, heated and pressurized using steam; and/or during the step in which this material is kept under pressure and temperature for a certain amount of time.
In the same field of endeavor, a process for recycling lignocellulosic fibers from a fiberboard, Fechter teaches that formation of some condense water is hard to avoid in the steaming step, thus, it is preferred to perform the steaming in manner such that fiberboard pieces are separated from any condense water, i.e. such that they are not brought into contact with any condense water, typically, condense water may be present at the bottom of a steaming vessel used, in steaming the fiberboard pieces, they may thus be present on a distance element (e.g. a net-basket or a permeable conveyor belt) keeping the fiberboard pieces, as well as the resulting portions comprising released lignocellulosic fibers, separate from any condense water, but still providing the steam with access to the fiberboard pieces (Pa [0019]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Allaert with the teachings of Fechter to provide a distance element (e.g. a net-basket) in the pressure vessel and place the material thereon in order to separate the material from any condense water in the steaming step.
With respect to claim 45, Allaert as applied to claim 42 above does not explicitly teach that after the step of reducing the pressure, the recycled wood fibers have a moisture content of between 3 and 20 percent by weight.
In the same field of endeavor, a process for recycling lignocellulosic fibers from a fiberboard, Fechter teaches that the moisture content in the portions comprising released lignocellulosic fibers may be 15 to 30%, and this will significantly lower the need for drying them before using them in fiberboard production (Pa [0018]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Allaert with the teachings of Fechter to make the moisture content of the recycled wood fibers taught by Fechter after steaming in order to significantly lower the need for drying them before using them in fiberboard production. Even if Fechter does not explicitly teach the claimed range of the moisture content, in the case where claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. (See MPEP 2144.05 (I)).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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 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 at 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 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.
/YUNJU KIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1742
Prosecution Insights