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
Claims 13-19 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected group, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 3/10/2026.
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 7, 8, and 11 are 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.
Claim 7 recites “such as a steaming arrangement”. The phrase "such as" 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). For purposes of examination, the steaming arrangement will be understood to be optional.
Claim 8 recites “wherein the forming belt and the dosing station are arranged in an overlapping manner” rendering the claim indefinite. Claim 1, from which claim 8 depends, recites “the forming belt being arranged downstream of a dosing station”. Thus, it is not clear if the forming belt and dosing station can be both overlapping and downstream. For purposes of examination, claim 8 will be understood to allow for the forming belt (20) to be partially downstream and overlapping the dosing station (30) as depicted if the drawings Fig. 1-4 of the instant application.
Claim 11 recites “wherein a difference in vertical level between the forming belt and the delivery end of the dosing station is less than 50 cm, wherein a difference in vertical level between a top of a receiving end of the forming belt and the top of the delivery end of the dosing station being less than 50 cm” (emphasis added) rendering the claim indefinite. It appears the first and second limitation are identical except for the phrase “top of” respective parts. It is not clear as to the difference between the two measurements. Examiner notes that paragraph [0015] of the instant specification discloses only “the top of” for each part to be measured to achieve less than 50 cm, and the claim will be interpreted as such. It is suggested that the first limitation be removed.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1, 7-8, and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Reinhall (US 4,311,555 A).
Regarding claim 1, Reinhall meets the claimed a forming and pre-pressing station for forming a fiberboard comprising compressed lignocellulosic fibers (ligno-cellulose material, e.g. in the form of wood chips, is conveyed to a chip bin 10, Col. 2, lines 24-30, Fig. 1), the forming and pre-pressing station comprising a press (belt press 56, hot press 58, Col. 3, lines 35-55) arranged downstream of a forming belt (Fig. 1, moving screen belt 48) the forming belt being arranged downstream of a dosing station (dispenser 44 and hood 46, Fig. 1, Examiner notes the forming belt is understood to be partially downstream and overlapping the dosing station as depicted if the drawings Fig. 1-4 of the instant application) and at least partly at a lower vertical level than a delivery end of the dosing station (belt 48 is below hood 46, Fig. 1), whereby lignocellulosic fibers may be transported from the dosing station to the press via the forming belt (belt 48, Fig. 1), further a pre-press is arranged over at least a part of the forming belt, the pre-press being arranged to compress the layer of lignocellulosic fibers by means of suction into a pre-compressed layer of lignocellulosic fibers before being fed to the press (pre- pressing by means of suction is performed e.g with the help of a vacuum box 50 placed under the screen belt 48, Col. 3, lines 2-10, this pre-pressing is performed essentially by the same mechanism with the help of a vacuum box as the pre-pressing defined in claim 2 of the present application, and thus meet the broadest reasonable interpretation of pre-press).
Regarding claim 7, Reinhall as modified by Miller meets the claimed forming and pre-pressing station according to claim 1, wherein the pre-press comprises a wetting arrangement for wetting an upper (Reinhall teaches feeds the material into a pre-heater 14 in which the chip material is heated to a temperature suitable for the process, Col. 2, lines 27-30) and/or a lower side of the layer of lignocellulosic fibers before being fed to the belt press; and/or wherein the pre-press comprises a heating arrangement, such as a steaming arrangement, for pre-heating the layer of lignocellulosic fibers before being fed to the press. (steam supplied through a pipe 15, Col. 2, line 30).
Regarding claim 8, Reinhall as modified by Miller meets the claimed forming and pre-pressing station according to claim 1, further comprising a rotatable forming and dissolving roller being arranged at an end of the dosing station for feeding lignocellulosic fibers to the forming belt, wherein the forming and dissolving roller is arranged to engage with lignocellulosic fibers from the dosing station, whereby the lignocellulosic fibers may be dissolved and distributed into a layer on the forming belt; wherein the forming and dissolving roller is a spike roller; and/or wherein the forming belt and the dosing station are arranged in an overlapping manner. (Reinhall teaches the moving screen belt 48 to be overlapping dispenser 44 and hood 46, Fig. 1. Examiner notes the forming belt is understood to be partially downstream and overlapping the dosing station as depicted if the drawings Fig. 1-4 of the instant application Examiner interprets the claim to recite three possible alternative limitations and Reinhall meets at least the third limitation).
Regarding claim 10, Reinhall as modified by Miller meets the claimed forming and pre-pressing station according to claim 8, wherein the dosing station comprises a dosing belt, and wherein the rotatable forming and dissolving roller is arranged to rotate with a tangential speed higher than a linear speed of the dosing belt, the station further comprising a main fiber supply unit for feeding, such as gravimetrically feeding, lignocellulosic fibers to the dosing belt; a first profile correction system being arranged upstream the forming and dissolving roller, whereby the lignocellulosic fibers on the dosing belt may be arranged to a layer of lignocellulosic fibers with uniform height before reaching the forming and dissolving roller, (planing device is positioned immediately after the point where the sheet emerges from the forming hood 46, Col. 3, lines 14-17) and/or a second profile correction system being arranged downstream the forming and dissolving roller, whereby the lignocellulosic fibers on the forming belt may be arranged to a layer of lignocellulosic fibers with uniform height before reaching the pre-press. (Examiner interprets the claim to recite three alterative limitations where Reinhall meets the second limitation).
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.
Claim(s) 2 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reinhall (US 4,311,555 A) in view of Miller (US 2008/0303191 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Reinhall meets the claimed. forming and pre-pressing station according to claim 1, wherein the pre-press comprises an air-permeable mesh belt (Fig. 1, moving screen belt 48), an inner side of the mesh belt being arranged in communication with a vacuum box, (vacuum 50, Fig. 1) whereby the lignocellulosic fibers may be pre-pressed over at least a portion of the lower side of the mesh belt into the pre-compressed layer of lignocellulosic fibers by evacuating air from the lignocellulosic fibers. (pre-pressing by means of suction is performed e.g with the help of a vacuum box 50 placed under the screen belt 48, Col. 3, lines 2-10).
Reinhall does not teach with a lower side arranged to be in contact with lignocellulosic fibers transported by the forming belt.
Miller teaches with a lower side arranged to be in contact with lignocellulosic fibers transported by the forming belt. (Miller teaches forming sheets from cellulosic fibers such as wood or paper pulp [0005] where compression between porous belt 336, conveyor 326, and action of the suction rollers from sets 334, the slurry 324 is further dewatered and consolidated in the first press 330, [0116], Fig. 4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application to combine the porous belt above the conveyer belt as taught by Miller in the apparatus of Reinhall because such an arrangement prevents the formation of microfractures in the slurry mat and subsequently lower strength in the final board product, see [0139].
Regarding claim 9, Reinhall does not meet the claimed forming and pre-pressing station according to claim 8, further comprising a further rotatable forming and dissolving roller, the further rotatable forming and dissolving roller being arranged below said forming and dissolving roller, and/or the further rotatable forming and dissolving roller being arranged on essentially a same vertical level as the delivery end of the dosing station.
Miller teaches forming and pre-pressing station according to claim 8, further comprising a further rotatable forming and dissolving roller, the further rotatable forming and dissolving roller being arranged below said forming and dissolving roller, (Miller teaches opposing roller sets 334 cooperate to form a gap there between. One or more of the individual rollers in the sets 334 may be suction rollers, with some applications featuring every other roller being a suction roller) and/or the further rotatable forming and dissolving roller being arranged on essentially a same vertical level as the delivery end of the dosing station.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application to combine the porous belt above the conveyer belt as taught by Miller in the apparatus of Reinhall because such an arrangement prevents the formation of microfractures in the slurry mat and subsequently lower strength in the final board product, see [0139].
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reinhall (US 4,311,555 A) in view of Miller (US 2008/0303191 A1) and Buckland (US 2004/0222547 A1).
Regarding claim 11, Reinhall as modified by Miller does not meet the claimed forming and pre-pressing station according to claim 1, wherein a difference in vertical level between the forming belt and the delivery end of the dosing station is less than 50 cm, wherein a difference in vertical level between a top of a receiving end of the forming belt and the top of the delivery end of the dosing station being less than 50 cm.
Reinhall teaches the moving screen belt 48 to be overlapping dispenser 44 and hood 46, Fig. 1.
Backlund teaches a method comprising providing the flow of lignocellulose-containing particles from a supply source at a predetermined height, depositing the flow of lignocellulose-containing particles from the predetermined height by means of gravity onto a forming belt at a location below the predetermined height, [0008]. Backlund teaches The position of the plate can be adjusted by moving the plate vertically by means of a maneuvering device 10, [0054]. Buckland teaches that the profile can be adjusted with respect to the particle composition concerned and with respect to other conditions in each particular case [0029].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to vary the difference in level (i.e. height) of the between a top of a receiving end of the forming belt and the top of the delivery end of the dosing station being less than 50 cm as claimed because the height of dispensing is an art-recognized result-effective variable as taught by Backlund and should be optimized to reduce the problem of deficient mat homogeneity caused by the air currents generated by movement of the particles, [0007].
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reinhall (US 4,311,555 A) in view of Miller (US 2008/0303191 A1) and Forry (US 4,432,714 A).
Regarding claim 12, Reinhall as modified by Miller does not meet the claimed forming and pre-pressing station according to claim 1, wherein the forming and pre-pressing station comprise a first supplementary fiber supply unit arranged upstream of the dosing station, and/or a second supplementary fiber supply unit arranged downstream of the delivery end of the dosing station and upstream of the pre-press.
Forry meets the claimed wherein the forming and pre-pressing station comprise a first supplementary fiber supply unit arranged upstream of the dosing station, (Forry teaches forming sheets from natural fibers such as cotton, wood fibers, or other cellulosic materials, Col. 7, lines 12-15, using an additional supply 83 upstream of supply 84, Fig. 4, Col. 9, lines 40-41) and/or a second supplementary fiber supply unit arranged downstream of the delivery end of the dosing station and upstream of the pre-press.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of present application to combine the second supply upstream as taught by Forry in the apparatus of Reinhall as modified because by utilizing two mat-forming zones it is possible to form sandwich-like building products having thin outer skins and a center core, see Col. 9, lines 33-35.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-6 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 3, Reinhall meets the claimed forming and pre-pressing station according to claim 2, wherein the press is a belt press, (Reinhall belt press 56, Fig. 1) and wherein the belt press and the forming belt (moving screen 48, Fig. 1) are arranged in a non-overlapping manner, (the moving screen 48 and belt press 56 of Reinhall does not overlap, see Fig. 1)
However Reinhall does not teach or suggest the air-permeable mesh belt of the pre-press being arranged in an overlapping manner over a lower belt of the belt press as well as over the forming belt, whereby the lignocellulosic fibers may be fed from the forming belt to the belt press by means of the air-permeable mesh belt; the belt press and the forming belt being arranged at a same vertical level.
Regarding claim 4, Reinhall does not teach or suggest the claimed forming and pre-pressing station according to claim 2,wherein the pre-press comprises a first roller arranged at a receiving end of the pre- press and a second roller arranged at a delivery end of the pre-press, the receiving end facing the delivery end of the dosing station and the delivery end facing the belt press, the air-permeable mesh belt being arranged around said rollers, wherein the first roller is hollow and a second vacuum box is arranged within the first roller to apply a suction over a part of its circumference; the second roller being hollow and arranged for releasing the pre-compressed layer of lignocellulosic fibers by means of an air pressurized box arranged within the second roller.
Regarding claim 5, Reinhall does not teach or suggest the forming and pre-pressing station according to claim 1, wherein the pre-press comprises a third roller being hollow and a third vacuum box is arranged within the third roller to apply a suction over a part of its circumference, the third roller being arranged over a part of the forming belt and downstream of the dosing station, wherein the pre-press comprises an air-permeable mesh belt arranged around the third roller and a fourth roller.
Regarding claim 6, the claim is allowed because it depends from allowable claim 4.
Relevant Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Pittman (US 2009/0188642 A1) teaches [0042] Upon exiting the enclosure 46, the main conveyor 44 carries the straw fiber 16 under a leveling reel 56, which assists in forming a substantially level mat 57 of the straw fibers 16, as seen in FIGS. 3 and 8-10. The leveling reel 56 rotates such that the straw mat 57 has a consistent height.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL M. ROBINSON whose telephone number is (571)270-0467. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:30AM-6PM.
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, Sam Zhao can be reached at (571)270-5343. 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.
/MICHAEL M. ROBINSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1744
Prosecution Insights