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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informalities: PMDI needs to be spelled out as “polymeric methylene diphenyl diisocyanate” in the claim for clarity, as it is the first instance where it is used in the claims. Appropriate correction is required.
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) 1, 4 and 10-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over USPUB 20170292270 issued to Schroder et al. in view of USPUB 20200206969 issued to Pans et al.
Regarding claim 1, where Applicant seeks a building material comprising:
a plurality of reed strands, each with a thickness between about 0.005 inches to 0.025 inches, wherein the plurality of reed strands substantially maintain a natural fiber composition of the reeds from which the strand was cut; and a binding agent;
Applicant is directed to Schroeder et al., discloses making building materials [see FIG. 1 which shows an OSRB construction panel 1, ¶ 0059] comprising: a plurality of reed strands, each with a thickness of a certain dimension [a blending 10 of the reed strands and straw strands with each other is conducted, ¶ 0070], wherein the plurality of reed strands substantially maintain a natural fiber composition of the reeds from which the strand was cut [reed as sustainable, natural, regrowing plant-based raw material, ¶ 0017]. Which is followed by a cutting 11 preferably to a length of 100 to 1000 mm, preferably 300 to 800 mm, particularly preferred 400 to 600 mm, ¶ 0070. Note that strands are fibers herein]; and a binding agent [subsequent to that, it is conducted a shortening 12 of the strands as well as a longitudinally splitting 13 and a dewaxing 14 of the strands by a solvent for an improved adhesion of the thereafter added binder 15, ¶ 0071].
Schroeder et al. fails to explicitly disclose each strand with a thickness between about 0.005 inches to 0.025 inches.
This is remedied by the teachings of Pans et al. who is in the field of binding lignocellulosic materials used in the manufacture of composite wood panels [¶ 0001] and teaches each strand with a thickness between about 0.005 inches to 0.025 inches [The fibers in fiberboard, such as MDF typically have a length of 7 mm or below, preferably of from 0.5 to 5 mm, a width/thickness of 0.005 to 0.2 mm, ¶ 0042. Note that thickness of 0.005 to 0.2 mm falls in the claimed ranges of 0.005 inches to 0.025 inches (0.127 mm- 0.635 mm)].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date to modify the material of Schroeder et al., to include each strand with a thickness between about 0.005 inches to 0.025 inches as taught by Pans et al. One would be motivated to do so to effectively manufacture wood fiber insulation boards [Pans et al., ¶ 0041].
Regarding claim 4, where Applicant seeks that the building material of claim 1, wherein the reed strands are randomly oriented within the building material; Applicant is directed to modified Schroeder et al., at ¶ 0037 where the sheet, the board or the panel are composed such that a plurality of the, strands of the layer of material are oriented in a predetermined direction and/or substantially in parallel.
Regarding claim 10, where Applicant seeks that the building material of claim 1, wherein the binding resin comprises PMDI; Applicant is directed to modified Schroeder et al., fails to explicitly disclose wherein the binding resin comprises PMDI. This is remedied by the teachings of Pans et al. who teaches the binding resin comprises PMDI [ at ¶ 0020, in particular it is an object of the present invention to identify a class of resins, in particular methylene bridged polyphenyl polyisocyanates (pMDI), for use as binder in fiberboard] .
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the inventio to have modified the material of Schroeder et al., to include the binding resin comprises PMDI as taught by Pans et al. One would be motivated to do so to utilize a binder in fiberboard, that is least sensitive to the range of qualities of fibers that are produced, thereby allowing for fiber variability and overcoming the spread of performance of the final board relating to fiber quality [Pans et al. ¶ 0020].
Regarding claim 11, where Applicant seeks that the building material of claim 1, wherein the building material is at least one of: a 7/16″×4′×8′ structural panel, or a 2×4 beam; Applicant is directed to modified Schroeder et al., who fails to explicitly disclose the building material is at least one of: a 7/16"x4'x8' structural panel, or a 2x4 beam. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date to modify the material of Schroeder et al., to include the building material is at least one of: a 7/16"x4'x8' structural panel, since such a modification would involve a mere change in the size of a component (A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art). The motivation for doing so would be to create bio-composite construction panels on the basis of sustainable, natural, regrowing plant raw materials with high density and improved properties [ Schroeder et al.,¶ 0045].
Regarding claim 12, where Applicant seeks that the building material of claim 1, wherein the reed strands are not woven; Applicant is directed to Schroeder et al. who does not teach that the reed strands are not woven as at ¶ 0070, Schroeder et al., teach a first step, a blending 10 of the reed strands and straw strands with each other is conducted.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over USPUB 20170292270 issued to Schroder et al. in view of USPUB 20200206969 issued to Pans et al. further in view of JP 4638342 issued to Hattori et al.
Regarding claim 2, where Applicant seeks that the building material of claim 1, wherein the building material has a cross sectional strand density of at least 40 strands per inch; Applicant is directed to modified combination of Schroder/Pans et al. who fail to teach that the building material has a cross sectional strand density of at least 40 strands per inch.
This is remedied by the teachings of Hattori et al., who is in the field of providing an automobile floor mat [See Abstract on page 2] and teaches the building material has a cross sectional strand density of at least 40 strands per inch [In the invention of (a), the woven base fabric is preferably a woven base fabric having a bar density of 10 To 30 threads / inch, weft density: 15 to Because a woven base fabric woven of 50 strands / inch is used. See page 4].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the material of combination of Schroder/Pans et al. to include the building material has a cross sectional strand density of at least 40 strands per inch as taught by Hattori et al. The motivation being to provide sufficient strength as an anti-slip sheet with excellent retention of anti-slip fibers and to improve durability as an anti-slip floor mat [Hattori et al page 4].
Claim(s) 3, 5-9 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over USPUB 20170292270 issued to Schroder et al. in view of USPUB 20200206969 issued to Pans et al. further in view of USPUB 2007/0095491 to Altheimer.
Regarding claims 3 and 17, where Applicant seeks that the building material of claim 1, wherein the reed strands comprise Arundo donax strands; Applicant is directed to the modified combination of Schroder/Pans et al. who fail to teach that the strands comprise Arundo donax strands.
This is remedied by the teachings of Altheimer.
Altheimer is in the field of composite panels and engineered products [¶ 0002] and teaches the reed strands comprise Arundo Donax strands [The chip is formed from an Arundo donax stem by cutting the stem across its length to provide a ring having a substantially circular cross section in a length from about 1/8 inch to about 3 inches, ¶ 0026].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the combination of Schroder/Pans et al. material to include the reed strands to comprise Arundo Donax strands as taught by Altheimer. The motivation being to provide composite panels and engineered products made of Arundo donax (a type of grass), and pulp and paper produced from Arundo donax [Altheimer ¶ 0002].
Regarding claim 5, where Applicant seeks that the building material of claim 1, wherein the building material comprises less than 7% of the binding resin by weight; Applicant is directed to the modified combination of Schroder/Pans et al. who fail to explicitly disclose that the building material comprises less than 7% of the binding resin by weight.
This is remedied by the teachings of Altheimer, who teaches the building material comprises less than 7% of the binding resin by weight [The panels include from about 1% to about 10% by weight of a resin binder based on the total weight of the panel, ¶ 0041].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the combination of Schroder/Pans et al’s., material to include the building material comprising less than 7% of the binding resin by weight as taught by Altheimer. The motivation being to provide composite panels and engineered products made of Arundo donax (a type of grass), and pulp and paper produced from Arundo donax that are lighter in weight [Altheimer, ¶ 0002].
Regarding claim 6, where Applicant seeks that the building material of claim 1, wherein the building material is about 7/16 inches thick, wherein the building material is characterized by a bending strength in a range from about 3,500 to 6,000 psi; Applicant is directed to the modified combination of Schroder/Pans et al. who fail to explicitly disclose that the building material is about 7/16 inches thick, wherein the building material is characterized by a bending strength in a range from about 3,500 to 6,000 psi.
This is remedied by the teachings of Altheimer, who teaches the building material is about 7/16 inches thick, wherein the building material is characterized by a bending strength in a range from about 3,500 to 6,000 psi [Static bending specimens were nominally 2x19x3/4 inch (ASTM specifies dimensions of 3x20x% inch for specimens with thickness greater than ¼ inch), ¶ 0106. Also See Table 3 in ¶ 0108 for a bending strength in a range from about 3,500 to 6,000 psl].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the material of Schroder/Pans et al’s., to include the building material is about 7/16 inches thick, wherein the building material is characterized by a bending strength in a range from about 3,500 to 6,000 psi as taught by Altheimer. The motivation being to provide composite panels and engineered products made of Arundo donax (a type of grass), and pulp and paper produced from Arundo donax [Altheimer, ¶0002].
Regarding claim 7, where Applicant seeks that the building material of claim 1, wherein the building material is characterized by a percent dimensional swelling of at most 25% under water saturation over a 24 hour period; Applicant is directed to the modified combination of Schroder/Pans et al. who fail to explicitly disclose that the f the building material of Claim 1, wherein the building material is characterized by a percent dimensional swelling of at most 25% under water saturation over a 24-hour period.
This is remedied by the teachings of Altheimer, who teaches the building material is characterized by a percent dimensional swelling of at most 25% under water saturation over a 24-hour period [Water Absorption and Thickness Swelling. One specimen of 6 in.x6 in. of each combination was immersed in distilled water at ambient temperature for 2 and 24 hours, ¶ 0098. Also See Table 1 for the building material is characterized by a percent dimensional swelling of at most 25% under water saturation over a 24-hour period].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the material of Schroder/Pans et al. to include the building material is characterized by a percent dimensional swelling of at most 25% under water saturation over a 24-hour period as taught by Altheimer. The motivation being to provide composite panels and engineered products made of Arundo donax (a type of grass), and pulp and paper produced from Arundo donax [Altheimer,¶ 0002].
Regarding claim 8, where Applicant seeks that the building material of claim 1, wherein the building material is characterized by a tensile strength of at least 2,650 psi as determined by ASTM D1037; Applicant is directed to the modified combination of Schroder/Pans et al. who fail to explicitly disclose that the tensile strength of at least 2,650 psi.
This is remedied by the teachings of Altheimer, who teaches the building material is characterized by a tensile strength [Typically the initial pulp freeness of 600 to 750 ml CSF is reduced to about 400 to 500 ml before papermaking to develop strength properties, tensile strength is increased with some small loss of tear strength,¶ 0136]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective priority date to modify the material of Schroder/Pans et al. to include the building material is characterized by a tensile strength of at least 2,650 psi as determined by ASTM D1037, since discovering the optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. The motivation for doing so would be to provide composite panels and engineered products made of Arundo donax (a type of grass), and pulp and paper produced from Arundo donax [Altheimer, ¶ 0002].
Regarding claim 9, where Applicant seeks that the building material of claim 1, wherein the building material has flexural stiffness of at least 68,000 lb-in2/ft; Applicant is directed to the modified combination of Schroder/Pans et al. who fail to explicitly disclose that the building material has flexural stiffness of at least 68,000 lb-in2/ft.
This is remedied by the teachings of Altheimer, who teaches the building material has flexural stiffness [the use of nalgrass particles would be best to obtain panels of superior strength and stiffness, ¶ 0114].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date to modify the material of combination of Schroder/Pans et al. to include the building material has flexural stiffness of at least 68,000 lb-in2/ft, since discovering the optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. The motivation for doing so would be to provide composite panels and engineered products made of Arundo donax (a type of grass), and pulp and paper produced from Arundo donax [Altheimer, ¶ 0002].
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over USPUB 20170292270 issued to Schroder et al. in view of USPUB 20200206969 issued to Pans et al. further in view of USPUB
Regarding claim 13, where Applicant seeks that the building material of claim 1, wherein the plurality of reed strands are produced by stranding a plurality of reeds, wherein every 1 lb of the building material retains at least 0.8 lbs of carbon dioxide captured by the plurality of reeds from the atmosphere during reed growth; Applicant is directed to modified Mayfair fails to explicitly disclose the building material of Claim 1, wherein the plurality of reed strands are produced by stranding a plurality of reeds, wherein every 1 lb of the building material retains at least 0.8 lbs of carbon dioxide captured by the plurality of reeds from the atmosphere during reed growth. Pioneer is in the field of a compact mixture of differentiated growing plant structures (para. 0058) and teaches the plurality of reed strands are produced by stranding a plurality of reeds, wherein the building material retains carbon dioxide captured by the plurality of reeds from the atmosphere during reed growth (Of interest are plants grown for energy production, so called energy crops, such as cellulose-based energy crops like Panicum virgatum (switchgrass), Sorghum bicolor (sorghum, sudangrass), Miscanthus giganteus (miscanthus), Saccharum sp. (energycane), Populus balsamifera (poplar), Andropogon gerardii (big bluestem), Pennisetum purpureum (elephant grass), Phalaris arundinacea (reed canarygrass), para. 0107. As used herein, "trait" refers to a physiological, morphological, biochemical, or physical characteristic of a plant or particular plant material or cell. in some instances, this characteristic is visible to the human eye, such as seed or plant size, or can be measured by biochemical techniques, such as detecting the protein, starch, or oil content of seed or leaves, or by observation of a metabolic or physiological process, e.g., by measuring uptake of carbon dioxide, para. 0149). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the priority date to modify the material of Mayfair to include the plurality of reed strands are produced by stranding a plurality of reeds, wherein every 1 lb of the building material retains at least 0.8 lbs of carbon dioxide captured by the plurality of reeds from the atmosphere during reed growth, since discovering the optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. The motivation for doing so would be to provide rapid, high efficiency methods and compositions for producing a transformed plant in the absence of cytokinin and without callus formation (Pioneer, para. 0001).
Claim(s) 14-16, 18 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over USPUB 20170292270 issued to Schroder et al. in view of JP 4638342 issued to Hattori et al.
Regarding claim 14, where Applicant seeks that a building material comprising:
a nonwoven mat of reed strands bound together by a binding agent;
wherein the mat has a transverse cross-sectional strand density of at least 30 strands per inch; Schroder et al. discloses a building material comprising: a nonwoven mat of reed strands bound together by a binding agent [Subsequent to that, it is conducted a shortening 12 of the strands as well as a longitudinally splitting 13 and a dewaxing 14 of the strands by a solvent for an improved adhesion of the thereafter added binder 15. Not split strands and/or impurities such as metal are removed. Finally, a scattering 17 of the strands is conducted onto a conveyor belt under longitudinal alignment and/or grading (sorting) by length over an area in longitudinal direction over the conveyor belt. The thereby formed mat consisting of piled up strands is compressed 18 in a hot press at 100° C. to 300° C. and subsequently cut to size 19 to the desired dimensions and contour of the desired sheet, board or panel, ¶ 0071].
Schroder et al. fails to explicitly disclose the mat has a transverse cross-sectional strand density of at least 30 strands per inch.
This is remedied by the teachings of Hattori et al., who teaches that the mat has a transverse cross-sectional strand density of at least 30 strands per inch [In the invention of (a), the woven base fabric is preferably a woven base fabric having a bar density of 10 To 30 threads / inch, weft density: 15 to Because a woven base fabric woven of 50 strands / inch is used, it is possible to provide sufficient strength as an anti-slip sheet with excellent retention of anti-slip fibers and to improve durability as an anti-slip floor mat. See page 4].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the priority date to modify the material of Schroder et al. to include the mat has a transverse cross-sectional strand density of at least 30 strands per inch. as taught by Hattori et al. The motivation being to provide sufficient strength as an anti-slip sheet with excellent retention of anti-slip fibers and to improve durability as an anti-slip floor mat [Hattori et al. See page 4].
Regarding claim 15, where Applicant seeks that the building material of claim 14, wherein the reed strands have a thickness to length aspect ratio of at least 1:400; Applicant is directed to the modified Schroder et al. who discloses the building material of Claim 14, wherein the reed strands have a thickness to length aspect ratio [Already as first step, a blending 10 of the reed strands and straw strands with each other is conducted. What is following is a cutting 11 preferably to a length of 100 to 1000 mm, preferably 300 to 800 mm, particularly preferred 400 to 600 mm, ¶ 0070].
Schroder et al. fails to explicitly disclose a thickness to length aspect ratio of at least 1:400. However, it would have been obvious to a skilled artisan to modify the material of Schroder et al. to include a thickness to length aspect ratio of at least 1:400, since discovering the optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. The motivation for doing so would be to create biocomposite construction panels on the basis of sustainable, natural, regrowing plant raw materials with high density and improved properties [Schroder et al. ¶ 0045].
Regarding claim 16, where Applicant seeks that the building material of claim 14, wherein the reed strands are not oriented relative to an axis of the building material; Applicant is directed to the Schroder who discloses the building material of Claim 14, wherein the reed strands are not oriented relative to an axis of the building material [In one embodiment, the sheet, the board or the panel are composed such that a plurality of the strands of the layer of material are oriented in a predetermined direction and/or substantially in parallel, ¶ 0037].
Regarding claim 18, where Applicant seeks that the building material of claim 14, wherein the building material is characterized by an ultimate load for lateral nail holding exceeding 175 lbf; Applicant is directed to the modified combination of Schroder discloses the building material of Claim 14, wherein the building material is characterized by an ultimate load for lateral nail [A 100%-reed-construction-panel having particular high density and mechanical strength values such as modulus of elasticity, bending strength or nail holding strength in the area of e.g., Plywood panels and possibly above that can be realized, ¶ 0024. Load bearing OSRB construction panels 1 have for example a minimum density of 500 kg/m3 to above 900 kg/m3 at 15 mm panel thickness, ¶ 0060].
Schroder et al fails to explicitly disclose the building material is characterized by an ultimate load for lateral nail holding exceeding 175 lbf.
However, it would have been obvious to a skilled artisan to modify the material of Schroder et al to include building material is characterized by an ultimate load for lateral nail holding exceeding 175 lbf, since discovering the optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. The motivation for doing so would be to create biocomposite construction panels on the basis of sustainable, natural, regrowing plant raw materials with high density and improved properties [Schroder et al ¶ 0045].
Regarding claim 19, where Applicant seeks that the building material of claim 14, wherein the building material is a structural panel with a minimum width of 1 foot characterized by a bending stiffness exceeding 50,000 lb-in2/ft; Applicant is directed to the modified combination of Schroder discloses the building material of Claim 14, wherein the building material is a structural panel with a minimum width of 1 foot characterized by a bending stiffness [A 100%-reed-construction-panel having particular high density and mechanical strength values such as modulus of elasticity, bending strength or nail holding strength in the area of e.g., Plywood panels and possibly above that can be realized. The strand length is by many times longer than that at HDF or HDP panels. A construction panel in the premium segment on the basis of a sustainable, natural, regrowing plant raw material is thereby made possible, ¶ 0024].
Schroder fails to explicitly disclose the building material is a structural panel with a minimum width of 1 foot characterized by a bending stiffness exceeding 50,000 lb-in2/ft. However, it would have been obvious to a skilled artisan to modify the material of Mayfair to include the building material is a structural panel with a minimum width of 1 foot characterized by a bending stiffness exceeding 50,000 lb-in2/ft, since discovering the optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. The motivation for doing so would be to create biocomposite construction panels on the basis of sustainable, natural, regrowing plant raw materials with high density and improved properties [Schroder ¶ 0045].
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over USPUB 20170292270 issued to Schroder et al. in view of USPUB 20200206969 issued to Pans et al. further in view of JP 4638342 issued to Hattori et al. and US 2017/0121722 to Pioneer Hi-Bred International Inc. (hereinafter, "Pioneer").
Regarding Claim 20, where Applicant seeks that the building material of claim 14, wherein the building material sequesters carbon dioxide from the atmosphere in the reed strands; Applicant is directed to the modified combination of Schroder/Pans/Hattori et al. who fail to explicitly disclose the building material sequesters carbon dioxide from the atmosphere in the reed strands.
This is remedied by Pioneer who teaches the building material sequesters carbon dioxide from the atmosphere in the reed strands [Of interest are plants grown for energy production, so called energy crops, such as cellulose-based energy crops like Panicum virgatum (switchgrass), Sorghum bicolor (sorghum, sudangrass), Miscanthus giganteus (miscanthus), Saccharum sp. (energycane), Populus balsamifera (poplar), Andropogon gerardii (big bluestem), Pennisetum purpureum (elephant grass), Phalaris arundinacea (reed canarygrass), ¶ 0107. As used herein, "trait" refers to a physiological, morphological, biochemical, or physical characteristic of a plant or particular plant material or cell. In some instances, this characteristic is visible to the human eye, such as seed or plant size, or can be measured by biochemical techniques, such as detecting the protein, starch, or oil content of seed or leaves, or by observation of a metabolic or physiological process, e.g., by measuring uptake of carbon dioxide, ¶ 0149].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date to modify the material of Schroder/Pans/Hattori to include the building material sequesters carbon dioxide from the atmosphere in the reed strands as taught by Pioneer. The motivation being to provide rapid, high efficiency methods and compositions for producing a transformed plant in the absence of cytokinin and without callus formation [Pioneer ¶ 0001].
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-22 of copending Application No. 18/918560 [USPUB 20250033328A1]. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the embodiment of the instant claims would be rendered obvious by the embodiments of claims 1-22 of 18/918,560.
They both require unwoven reeds of Arundo strands, with the same thickness, same binding agent, same density, same structural arrangement and same final end use.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. CA-02528556 issued to Lavoie.
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, Melvin Mayes can be reached at 571-272-1234. 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
Prosecution Insights