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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because in Figure 2, numeral “76” is not described in the originally-filed specification. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: Numeral “76” in Figure 2 is not described in the originally-filed specification. On page 11, line 33, the numeral “16” should be - - 15 - - .
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim 8 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.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the coarse chip layer" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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) 1, 3-6 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Griem (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2014/0102615 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Griem (see the entire document, in particular, paragraphs [0001], [0019], [0071], [0072], [0083, [0095], [0100], [0102], [0103], [0105], [0106] and [0113]; Figures 1 and 2) teaches a process (see paragraphs [0001] (method of manufacturing a fire proof board) and [0019] (production of, for example, oriented strand boards) of Griem), including (a) producing coarse chips (see Figure 1, paragraph [0096] (logs 2 are moved to knife drum flaker 6 by conveyor 4 to produce wood flakes; wood flakes are conveyed to hammer mill 10 to provide wood strands) of Griem); (b) applying a flame-retardant solution to the coarse chips (see Figure 1, paragraph [0102] (strands 23 are immersed in a watery flame retardant chemical composition 12 in container 16) of Griem); (c) subsequently removing the flame retardant solution from the coarse chips by applying a pressure difference resulting in coarse chips containing flame retardant (see Figure 1, paragraph [0103] (strands 23 are subjected to air jet 24 (i.e., an applied pressure difference) to remove water (from the watery solution of flame retardant chemical composition 12)) of Griem); (d) applying glue to the coarse chips containing the flame retardant, thereby obtaining glued coarse chips (see Figure 1, paragraph [0105] (strands 23 are transferred from bin 28 to bin 32 operatively associated with blender 36 to thoroughly mix strands 23 with adhesive) of Griem); and (e) pressing the coarse chips, thereby obtaining and OSB panel (see Figure 1, paragraph [0106] (adhesive coated strands are conveyed to compression device 40 to produce board 42) of Griem).
Regarding claim 3, see Figure 1, paragraph [0100] (strands 23 are conveyed past pre-dryer 11 applying a heated air jet) of Griem.
Regarding claim 4, see Figure 2, paragraph [0113] (strands 23 have a length of 12-150 mm, a width of 2-20 mm and a thickness of 0.2-0.6 mm; strand layers 46, 48, 50 can include wood particles having dimensions outside the above-specified ranges) of Griem.
Regarding claims 5 and 6, see Figure 1, paragraph [0103] (strands 23 are subjected to air jet 24 (i.e., blowing off) to remove moisture (from the watery solution of flame retardant chemical composition 12)) of Griem.
Regarding claim 8, see paragraphs [0071] (flame retardant chemical composition includes a pH regulator) and [0072] (pH regulator is a weak acid (e.g., acetic acid, which is also a surfactant)) of Griem.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Griem (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2014/0102615 A1) as applied to claims 1, 3-6 and 8 above, and further in view of Preston et al (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2004/0028934 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Griem teaches (1) arranging coarse chips on a transport belt, resulting in a coarse chip layer (see Figure 1 (conveyor 4 conveys strands 23) of Griem) and (3) applying a pressure difference to the coarse chips containing a flame retardant solution by applying a negative pressure to a lower side of the transport belt and/or an overpressure to an upper side of the coarse chip layer (see Figure 1, paragraph [0100] (strands 23 are conveyed past pre-dryer 11 applying a heated air jet) of Griem), but Griem does not teach (2) applying the flame retardant solution to the coarse chips on the transport belt. Preston et al (see the entire document, in particular, paragraphs [0003], [0042] and [0056]) teaches a process (see paragraph [0003] (method of manufacturing wood-based composite products (e.g., oriented strand board)) of Preston et al), including applying a flame retardant solution to coarse chips on a transport belt (see paragraphs [0042] (the fire-retardant treatment is applied by spraying) and [0056] (the particles can be deposited on a plate-like carriage carried on an endless belt or conveyor in the direction of travel) of Preston et al), and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply a flame retardant solution to coarse chips on a transport belt in the process of Griem in view of Preston et al because the substitution of one known element (i.e., spraying on a belt) for another known element (i.e., immersing in a container) would have yielded predictable results (e.g., the manufacture of wood-based composite products) to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Griem (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2014/0102615 A1) as applied to claims 1, 3-6 and 8 above, and further in view of Falkman (WO 91/09093 A1).
Regarding claim 7, Griem does not teach (1) drying the coarse chips containing the flame retardant, following the removal of the flame retardant solution present in the coarse chips. Falkman (see the entire document, in particular, page 1, lines 10-12; page 5, lines 10-14; page 12, lines 22-34) teaches a process (see page 1, lines 10-12 (use of a solution for rendering porous materials, such as wood and textiles, flame retardant) of Falkman), including drying the coarse chips containing the flame retardant, following the removal of the flame retardant solution present in the coarse chips (see page 5, lines 10-14 (incorporating a flame retardant composition into a porous material, and drying the material) of Falkman), and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to dry the coarse chips containing the flame retardant, following the removal of the flame retardant solution present in the coarse chips in the process of Griem in view of Falkman in order to remove moisture/water from the porous material (see page 12, lines 22-34 of Falkman).
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Griem (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2014/0102615 A1) in combination with Preston et al (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2004/0028934 A1).
Regarding claim 11, Griem (see the entire document, in particular, paragraphs [0001], [0019], [0092], [0096]-[0098], [0100], [0102] and [0103]; Figure 1) teaches an apparatus (see Figure 1, paragraphs [0092] (apparatus for exercising the method) and [0019] (production of oriented strand board) of Griem), including (a) a coarse chip production device which produces coarse chips from wood (see Figure 1, paragraph [0096] (logs 2 are moved to knife drum flaker 6 by conveyor 4 to produce wood flakes; wood flakes are conveyed to hammer mill 10 to provide wood strands) of Griem); (b) a dryer which dries the coarse chips and that is connected to the coarse chip production device (see Figure 1, paragraph [0100] (strands 23 are conveyed past pre-dryer 11 applying a heated air jet) of Griem); (c) a distribution device which distributes the coarse chips, thereby obtaining a coarse chip layer (see Figure 1, paragraphs [0097] (particle separator 14 classifies and separates wood particles into fractions) and [0098] (wood particles are conveyed to a measurement stage 3 on a conveyor 4 as a layer of wood particles) of Griem); (e) a flame retardant solution application device configured to apply a flame retardant solution to the coarse chip layer (see Figure 1, paragraph [0102] (container 16 contains a watery solution of a flame retardant chemical composition 12) of Griem); and (f) a pressure difference generator which applies to the coarse chip layer at a pressure difference (see Figure 1, paragraph [0103] (wood strands 23 are subjected to air jet 24 generated by blower 25) of Griem). Griem does not teach (d) a belt conveyor arranged downstream of a dryer in a direction of material flow which transports a coarse chipboard layer. Preston et al (see the entire document, in particular, paragraphs [0003], [0042] and [0056]) teaches an apparatus (see paragraph [0003] (manufacturing wood-based composite products (e.g., oriented strand board)) of Preston et al), including a belt conveyor arranged downstream of a dryer in a direction of material flow which transports a coarse chipboard layer (see paragraphs [0042] (the fire-retardment treatment is applied by spraying) and [0056] (the particles can be deposited on a plate-like carriage carried on an endless belt or conveyor in the direction of travel) of Preston et al), and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply a flame retardant solution to coarse chips on a transport belt in the apparatus of Griem in view of Preston et al because the substitution of one known element (i.e., spraying on a belt) for another known element (i.e., immersing in a container) would have yielded predictable results (e.g., the manufacture of wood-based composite products) to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Griem (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2014/0102615 A1) in combination with Preston et al (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2004/0028934 A1) as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Baroux (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2013/0300015 A1).
Regarding claim 15, Griem (in combination with Preston et al) does not teach (1) a return device which returns the flame retardant solution that has been removed from the coarse chips by the pressure difference generator to the flame retardant solution application device. Baroux (see the entire document, in particular, paragraphs [0002], [0013] and [0030]; Fig 1) teaches an apparatus (see paragraphs [0002] (apparatus for forming fire resistant products) and [0013] (products include oriented strand board) of Baroux), including a return device which returns the flame retardant solution that has been removed from the coarse chips by the pressure difference generator to the flame retardant solution application device (see Figure 1, paragraph [0030] (recovery device 600 is configured to recover excess fire-retarding solution, treat the solution and reintroduce the solution to mixing device 300) of Baroux), and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a return device in the apparatus of Griem (in combination with Preston et al) in view of Baroux in order to prevent fire-retarding solution from leaving apparatus 100 as a waste product (see paragraph [0030] of Baroux).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9, 10 and 12-14 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LEO B. TENTONI whose telephone number is (571)272-1209. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30-4:00 ET M-F.
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 A. 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.
LEO B. TENTONI
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1742
/LEO B TENTONI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1742
Prosecution Insights