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 . 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.
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 6 & 10 is 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 6, the phrase "preferably" 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).
Regarding claim 10, the phrase "preferably" 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).
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 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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 7, 10-14, 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arndell (U.S PG Pub 20040170856A1), Bielfeldt (U.S Patent 6054081), and Wang (U.S PG Pub 20160361833A1).
Regarding claim 1, Arndell, drawn also to the art of manufacturing an adhesive laminated wood product/veneer (Abstract), discloses a process of applying an accelerator (water in this instance – can be applied before, during or after resin application [0036]) [0008 & 0036] to a veneer and applying an isocyanate adhesive to the veneer [0032-0033 & 0049]. Arndell discloses combining the veneers into a panel blank and then compressing and heating in a heat press/mold [0038 & 0040]. Arndell has not explicitly disclosed a preheating step as claimed, however, this limitation is disclosed by Bielfeldt.
Bielfeldt, drawn also to the art of a process for continuous production of boards of wood-based material (Abstract), discloses a continuous process wherein a wood board/plank (mat) is preheated and in a continuous process (Abstract) i.e. without any breaks or diversions in between, fed to the main hot pressing area after preheating (Column 5, lines 14-29). The disclosure of a continuously operating preliminary press with preheating and then the subsequent passage of the mat into the main press would mean that the transfer of the mat between the preheating area and the main pressing are is a continuous process without any breaks, which implicitly means that it is a near instant/immediate transfer, as there is no waiting or storage area in between the preliminary press and main press. Given this, it can be reasonably expected that the transfer from the preheating area to the main press happens within 200s (3 mins 20s) as claimed, since in a continuous process there would be no such waiting time between stages. Bielfeldt also discloses that the temperature of the mat is raised to between 65C to 90C in the preheating step (Claim 4).
It would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan to have modified the method of Arndell, with the step of preheating as disclosed by Bielfeldt, to arrive at the instant invention, in order to bring about shorter setting and crosslinking times within the continuously operating main press and leading to a marked increase in production with shorter pressing times (Abstract; Column 2, lines 27-31).
With regards to the limitation of the preheating being implemented by microwave, while Bielfeldt has not explicitly disclosed a microwave being the preheating device, it is known in the art from Wang, to use a microwave to preheat.
Wang, drawn also to the art of manufacturing engineered wood products (Abstract), discloses that preheating the wood with microwave is a known technique in the art [0002]. Wang also discloses that preheating time is determined according to mass of the assembly, wood species, veneer MC, the temperature to be raised to etc. [0044], and discloses that preheating leads to reduced pressing times [0072 & 0044] and less energy consumption [0044].
It would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan to have modified the method of Arndell and Bielfeldt, with the preheating being conducted by microwave, as disclosed by Wang, to arrive at the instant invention, since as such this is a well-known prior art element, and the courts have held that the combination of known prior art elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious and a matter of ordinary skill in the absence of new or unexpected results (MPEP 2143 I(A)).
Regarding claim 2, Arndell discloses the wood veneer being a Douglas fir (which is a species of pine) with a moisture content of between 2% and 12% [0072]. The range of moisture content as disclosed by Arndell forms an overlapping and encompassing range with the instantly claimed range and thus obviates it. The courts have held that in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In reWertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976) (MPEP 2144.05 (I)).
Regarding claim 7, Arndell discloses an application of the accelerator (water) of 5 pounds per 1000 square feet [0061], which translates to 0.005 pounds per square feet, which translates to 24.41 g/m^2, thus anticipating the instantly claimed range.
Arndell also discloses that the application of water will depend on a variety of factors, such as the initial moisture content of the veneers, the press conditions [0036]. Thus, the application amount of the accelerator (water in this instance) is a result effective variable, as the amount of water added is affected by multiple different factors, and further given that the water is added to accelerate curing, the amount of water added would have an effect on the curing rate as well, thus, the amount of accelerant is a result effective variable. The courts have held that it is in the purview of an ordinarily skilled artisan to routinely optimize a result effective variable in the absence of new or unexpected results (MPEP 2144.05 (II)).
Regarding claim 10, Arndell has disclosed the isocyanate being methylene diphenyl diisocyanate in its entirety [0046 & 0049].
Regarding claim 11, Arndell discloses a NCO content of 19% thus anticipating the instant range [0061].
Regarding claim 12, Arndell discloses a spread rate for the adhesive to be between 10 to 30 pounds per 1000 square feet (taking a value of 15 pounds, this translates to 0.015 pounds per square feet – which translates to 73.24 g/m^2) [0035], which falls within the instantly claimed range and obviates the range. The courts have held that in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In reWertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976) (MPEP 2144.05 (I)).
Regarding claim 13, Arndell has disclosed that the plurality of veneer layers can be in the same grain direction [0046].
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Arndell, Bielfeldt, and Wang has disclosed the instant limitations. Bielfeldt and Wang disclose preheating with microwave, and also discloses that this has an effect on the pressing time needed (see claim 1 rejection above – both Bielfeldt and Wang disclose that preheating leads to less pressing times). Further, Wang also discloses that Wang also discloses that preheating time is determined according to mass of the assembly, wood species, veneer MC, the temperature to be raised to etc. [0044], and discloses that preheating leads to reduced pressing times [0072 & 0044] and less energy consumption [0044]. Thus, the preheating time is a result effective variable, which has an effect on pressing times and energy consumption. The courts have held that it is obvious and in the purview of an ordinarily skilled artisan to routinely optimize result effect variables in the absence of new or unexpected results (MPEP 2144.05 (II)).
Regarding the center of the plank being 90C or less, Bielfeldt has disclosed that the temperature of the mat is raised to between 65C to 90C in the preheating step (Claim 4), which would mean the center of the mat is also in between these temperatures thus anticipating the claimed range.
Regarding claim 16, Arndell discloses pressing pressures of 100 to 500 psi (0.69 MPa to 3.45 MPa) and pressing temperatures of 25C to 300C [0040], thus disclosing pressing conditions that overlap and encompass the instantly claimed ranges, and thus obviate the range. The courts have held that in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In reWertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976) (MPEP 2144.05 (I)).
Claim(s) 3-4, 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arndell (U.S PG Pub 20040170856A1), Bielfeldt (U.S Patent 6054081), Wang (U.S PG Pub 20160361833A1), and Haider (U.S PG Patent 6022444).
Regarding claims 3-4, neither Arndell, Bielfeldt, nor Wang, have explicitly disclosed the accelerator being a polyether containing a polyethylene oxide segment and wherein the polyether is a ethylene oxide based polyether or ethylene oxide-co-propylene oxide based polyether. These limitations are known from Haider.
Haider, drawn also to the art of isocyanate prepolymers that are useful as binders in lignocellulose containing materials (Column 1, lines 5-10), discloses an isocyanate reactive compound (Column 3, lines 57-67) i.e. accelerator that is a polyether that is based on ethylene oxide, propylene oxide or combinations thereof (Column 4, lines 39-48). Haider discloses that such a binder used with wood products results in good appearance, good internal bond properties, good dimensional stability, excellent interior durability and low emissions (Column 5, lines 56-67).
It would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan to have modified the method of Arndell, Bielfeldt, and Wang, with the accelerator being a polyether ethylene oxide based accelerator, as disclosed by Haider, to arrive at the instant invention, in order to obtain a wood product with good appearance, good internal bond properties, good dimensional stability, excellent interior durability and low emissions.
Regarding claims 8-9, Haider has disclosed an amine initiator (Column 4, lines 39-44; Column 6, line 26).
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arndell (U.S PG Pub 20040170856A1), Bielfeldt (U.S Patent 6054081), Wang (U.S PG Pub 20160361833A1), and Zhang (CN111645164A - see machine translation attached).
Regarding claim 14, neither Arndell, Bielfeldt, nor Wang, have explicitly disclosed a hot pressing factor as claimed, however, such a hot pressing factor has been disclosed by Zhang.
Zhang, drawn also to the art of wood products and a manufacturing process for wood products (Abstract; [0002]), discloses microwave preheating the wood slab [0037] and further discloses a hot pressing factor for pressing the wood slab of 8.5-10.5s/mm [0038], which falls within the instantly claimed range and thus anticipates the claimed range.
It would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan to have modified the method of Arndell, Bielfeldt, and Wang, with the hot pressing factor as disclosed by Zhang, to arrive at the instantly claimed invention, in order to obtain a wood product that is easy to process, not easily damaged, and having low cost [0025].
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5 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.
Claim 6 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include 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: the prior art of record does not reasonably show or suggest the subject matter of claims 5 & 6, particularly the polyether being .
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: US-7220375-B2, US-6572804-B2, US-6402877-B1, US-5892208-A, US-5063010-A.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ABHISHEK A PATWARDHAN whose telephone number is (571)272-8431. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 7:30am-5pm.
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, Michael Orlando can be reached at (571)270-5038. 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.
/ABHISHEK A PATWARDHAN/Examiner, Art Unit 1746
/MICHAEL N ORLANDO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1746