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
Applicant's election with traverse of Claims 1-14 in the reply filed on 5 May 2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that there is no serious burden (Remarks, p. 1). This is not found persuasive because there is a serious risk of diverging claim amendments where Group I requires placing wood before impregnating it with a detailed pH neutral aqueous impregnant solution comprising a specific reagent, while Claim 15 requires placing wood after impregnation without any detailed impregnant. Regarding Applicant’s argument that Applicant’s claim 1 requires increasing the pressure in the treatment chamber so that the pressure is above the boiling point of water for any temperature in the treatment chamber (Remarks, p. 2), the argument does not make sense, since a boiling point is a temperature. Therefore, it is not clear what is meant by a pressure being above a particular temperature (boiling point of water) for any temperature in the chamber. This limitation also suggests a serious burden in risk arising from diverging issues of indefiniteness between claim sets 1-14 and Claim 15. For example, Claim set 1-14 requires on the one hand a neutral pH, that is not really neutral, while Claim 15 does not include such an issue.
In response to Applicant’s argument that because Willems teaches a pressure below a saturation pressure at all times, it does not meet Claim 1, which requires increasing the pressure in the treatment chamber, so that the pressure is above the boiling point of water for any temperature in the treatment chamber (Remarks, p. 2), the limitation does not have any clear meaning, since it is not clear what is meant by a pressure being above a boiling point (temperature). Moreover, US’739 also comments that it was known in the art to treat wood with saturated steam [0003] and suggests 95% saturation [0019,0054]. Moreover, the boiling point of water at 9 bar is about 175 C and at 11 bar around 184 C, and the temperature in the treatment chamber does not go over 180 C, which is the boiling point at this pressure [0054]. As an example, Fig. 2 shows during step C between time 3 and 4 a temperature of 150 C and a pressure of 9 bara; this temperature is below the boiling point (180 C) of water at that pressure. Additionally, while Applicant emphasizes paragraph [0054], which reads, “steam is held all times below the saturation pressure,” paragraph [0053] explains that this means “the vapour pressure of the steam in the treatment space is held below 100% saturation during the treatment”(e.g., 95% saturation, which is a mixture of vapor and liquid) (Claim 3; [0019]). The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claim 15 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 5 May 2026.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 14 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In Claim 1, “a combined processes” should be written “a combined process”. Appropriate correction is required.
Applicant is advised that should Claim 1 be found allowable, Claim 14 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
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 1-14 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 1 recites the limitation “pH neutral” in lines 4 and 6. The limitation is indefinite, because neutral pH is 7; yet, the specification describes an embodiment wherein neutral pH includes pH which are not neutral, including both basic pH levels and acid pH levels. For example, between 5 and 9 and between 6 and 7. Dependent Claim 7 also narrows pH neutral aqueous impregnant solution to a pH between 5 and 9. However, neither the specification nor the claims clearly define what Applicant means by “neutral pH,” and the specification does not clearly limit so-called “neutral pH” to between 5 and 9. Because Applicant’s use of the “neutral pH” to include non-neutral pH levels blurs any real boundary between a neutral pH and either alkaline or acidic pH, it does not sufficiently define boundaries between an ostensible “neutral” pH range and other pH ranges not considered neutral; the limitation does not provide a reasonable basis to determine what pH which must be considered neutral. Therefore, the term “neutral” is considered to apply to any pH range greater than 1 and less than 14.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “so that the pressure is above the boiling point of water for any temperature in the treatment chamber.” The limitation is indefinite, because it is not clear what is meant by a pressure (pressure) being above a boiling point (temperature) of water at any temperature. Examiner interprets the limitation to mean the recited treatment chamber is at a pressure and temperature at or above the boiling point of water at the pressure of a treatment chamber. In other words, the temperature treatment chamber is not raised to a temperature above the boiling point of water at the treatment chamber’s pressure.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the wood does not receive any physical and or chemical treatment between step c) and step d).” The limitation is indefinite as vague, since it is not clear what phenomena should be considered within the definitions of “physical and or chemical treatment” or what phenomena are excluded from the definition. Moreover, it is not clear where the boundaries between steps c) and d) are in order to determine what other step may be either included in step c) or d) or between step c) or d). For example, since step c) requires impregnating the wood with the pH neutral aqueous impregnant solution and step d) requires increasing the pressure in the treatment chamber, it is not clear whether the limitation “the wood does not receive any physical and or chemical treatment between step c) and step d) to require that all impregnation or movement of impregnant into or out of cells ceases between step c) and step d) or whether all physical forces (e.g. due to gravity, pressure, and/ or temperature) must be equal to zero between steps c) and d) or whether no chemical reactions which occur both in c) and in d) can occur somewhere between c) and d). Moreover, the further detail of substeps within step c) in other claims (e.g. Claim 2) make it unclear when “a physical and/ or chemical treatment” should be considered specifically between step c) and d) or to be considered a step within step c) or d). For example, Claim 4, recites “cc) relocating the impregnated wood from the impregnating chamber to a treatment chamber, wherein step cc is to be performed after the impregnation of step c) and before application of increased pressure of step d).” What is considered a substep cc) of step c) in Claim 4 can also be considered a “physical treatment” step BETWEEN steps c) and d), which is supposedly not permitted by Claim 1. Examiner interprets the limitation to mean that no additional chemicals are added, that temperature and pressure remain generally constant between steps c and d, and that no unbalanced accelerating forces are applied to components of the system (e.g. stirring, agitating, spinning).
Claim 2 recites the limitation “pH neutral” in lines 3,5, and 6. The limitation is indefinite, because neutral pH is 7; yet, the specification describes an embodiment wherein neutral pH includes pH which are not neutral, including both basic pH levels and acid pH levels. For example, between 5 and 9 and between 6 and 7. Dependent Claim 7 also narrows pH neutral aqueous impregnant solution to a pH between 5 and 9. However, neither the specification nor the claims clearly define what Applicant means by “neutral pH,” and the specification does not clearly limit so-called “neutral pH” to between 5 and 9. Because Applicant uses the term “neutral pH” to include non-neutral pH levels and does not clearly define boundaries of pH range which are NOT considered neutral, the limitation does not provide a reasonable basis to determine any range of pH which must be considered neutral or not. Therefore, the term “neutral” is considered to apply to any pH range greater than 1 and less than 14.
Claim 2 recites the limitation “suitable temperature.” The limitation is indefinite as vague, because it is not clear for what function the temperature must be suitable. Examiner considers the limitation to include the interpretation “temperature.”
Claim 2 recites the limitation “the pH neutral aqueous impregnant solutioning” at both line 21 and line 23. The limitation is indefinite, because it is not clear whether the term is meant to refer to the “impregnant solution” of Claim 1 or whether it is meant to refer to some other feature of the claimed process. The limitation also lacks adequate antecedent basis. Examiner considers the limitation to include the term “the pH neutral aqueous impregnant solution.”
Claim 4 recites the limitation “wherein the method comprises an additional step of: cc) relocating the impregnated wood from the impregnating chamber to a treatment chamber, wherein step cc is to be performed after the impregnation of step c) and before application of increased pressure of step d) and wherein the wood does not receive any additional physical and/or chemical treatment during step cc).” The limitation is indefinite, because it is not clear whether it is an impermissible physical treatment between step c) and d), according to Claim 1, a permissible physical treatment substep within step c) for impregnating the wood, or not a physical treatment. Unlike Claim 1, Claim 4 also recites “wherein the wood does not receive any additional physical and/ or chemical treatment during step cc),” which could reasonably be understood as acknowledging that cc) does include a physical and/ or chemical treatment, since it cannot receive any additional to those in cc), between impregnating and increasing pressure. For purposes of examination, Examiner considers step cc) not to be within the definition of “physical treatment.”
Claim 5 recites the limitation “pH neutral.” The limitation is indefinite, because neutral pH is 7; yet, the specification describes an embodiment wherein neutral pH includes pH which are not neutral, including both basic pH levels and acid pH levels. For example, between 5 and 9 and between 6 and 7. Dependent Claim 7 also narrows pH neutral aqueous impregnant solution to a pH between 5 and 9. However, neither the specification nor the claims clearly define what Applicant means by “neutral pH,” and the specification does not clearly limit so-called “neutral pH” to between 5 and 9. Because Applicant uses the term “neutral pH” to include non-neutral pH levels and does not clearly define boundaries of pH range which are NOT considered neutral, the limitation does not provide a reasonable basis to determine any range of pH which must be considered neutral or not. Therefore, the term “neutral” is considered to apply to any pH range greater than 1 and less than 14.
Claim 5 recites the limitation “without additional catalyst.” The limitation is indefinite as ambiguous, because it is not clear what aspect of Claim 5 the phrase is meant to modify, whether for example a one or more reagent is suitable for polymerization without a catalyst or whether the pH neutral aqueous impregnant solution is without a catalyst. Also, it is not clear what the adjective “additional” in the phrase “additional catalyst” is meant to imply. For example, the phrase could imply a) that the impregnant solution includes catalyst, and no additional catalyst should be added; b) that no catalyst at all should be added, because some other component can be considered a catalyst even though no other component has been identified in the claims as a catalyst; or c) that a one or more reagent is of a category of reagents suitable for polymerization and/ or chemical reaction even without a catalyst, which is not necessarily excluded from the recited aqueous impregnant solution. Examiner considers the limitation to include any of the above interpretations.
Claim 6 recites the limitation “pH neutral.” The limitation is indefinite, because neutral pH is 7; yet, the specification describes an embodiment wherein neutral pH includes pH which are not neutral, including both basic pH levels and acid pH levels. For example, between 5 and 9 and between 6 and 7. Dependent Claim 7 also narrows pH neutral aqueous impregnant solution to a pH between 5 and 9. However, neither the specification nor the claims clearly define what Applicant means by “neutral pH,” and the specification does not clearly limit so-called “neutral pH” to between 5 and 9. Because Applicant uses the term “neutral pH” to include non-neutral pH levels and does not clearly define boundaries of pH range which are NOT considered neutral, the limitation does not provide a reasonable basis to determine any range of pH which must be considered neutral or not. Therefore, the term “neutral” is considered to apply to any pH range greater than 1 and less than 14.
Claim 6 recites the limitation “the pH neutral aqueous impregnant solutioning”. The limitation is indefinite, because it is not clear whether the term is meant to refer to the “impregnant solution” of Claim 1 or whether it is meant to refer to some other feature of the claimed process. The limitation also lacks adequate antecedent basis. Examiner considers the limitation to include the term “the pH neutral aqueous impregnant solution.”
Claim 8 recites the limitation “to maintain the pressure in the treatment chamber above water’s boiling point when the temperature is increased.” The limitation is indefinite, because it is not clear what is meant by a pressure (pressure) being above water’s boiling point (temperature) when temperature is increased. Examiner interprets the limitation to mean that the temperature is raised to a temperature at or below the boiling point of water at a pressure of the treatment chamber and optionally adjusting pressure.
Claim 9 recites the limitation “during steps e) and f).” The limitation is indefinite, because no step f) is recited in Claims 1 and 9. Since no step f) is recited, what step f) requires cannot be determined.
Claim 11 recites the limitation “during step f).” The limitation is indefinite, because no step f) is recited in Claims 1 and 9. Since no step f) is recited, what step f) requires cannot be determined.
Claim 13 recites the limitations “RCO2-H,” “R’OH,” and “RCO2HR’.” The limitations are indefinite, because neither the claims nor the specification defines or gives any guidance as to what functional groups define R and R’, and it cannot be determined what differences, if any, are meant to distinguish R from R’. Examiner considers RCO-2H to include carboxylic acids and R’OH to include alcohols.
Claim 14 is drawn to a “Use of the method according to claim 1 for modifying wood.” The claim is indefinite, because it is not clear what distinction there is, if any, between the method of Claim 1 for modifying and a use (also a method?) of the method according to claim 1 for modifying wood. Examiner considers Claim 14 to be a substantial duplicate of Claim 1.
Claims 2-14 are rejected as depending from other rejected claims.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5, 8-11, and 13-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a) as being anticipated by Willems (US 2010/0143739).
Regarding Claims 1 and 14, Willems (US’739) teaches a method of modifying wood, wherein the method comprises the steps of: a) selecting and placing the wood in a treatment chamber ;b) preparing a pH neutral aqueous impregnant solution (pH 3-6, where “pH neutral” also includes acidic, see Applicant’s Claim 7) comprising at least one reagent (steam, comprising acids and/ or bases) suitable for polymerization and/or chemical reaction with the wood; c) impregnating the wood with the pH neutral aqueous impregnant solution (steam ); increasing the pressure in the treatment chamber, so that the temperature is below the boiling point of water at a pressure of the treatment chamber (saturation is less than 95% in step C, Claim 3; Fig. 2) (e) increasing the temperature in said the treatment chamber, so that a combined processes of polymerization/chemical reaction of the impregnant and hydrolysis of wood hemicelluloses is facilitated (e.g. steps C and D (Fig. 2); wherein the wood does not receive any physical and or chemical treatment between step c) and step d) (step F is an optional step [0018,0050]).
Regarding Claim 2, US’739 teaches wherein the impregnation of step c) comprises the steps of: heating the treatment chamber, the wood: and the pH neutral aqueous impregnant solution prepared in step b) to a suitable temperature [0054]; pulling a vacuum in the treatment chamber to vaporize the pH neutral aqueous impregnant solutioning prepared in step b) into vapor phase; circulating inside the treatment chamber the vaporized pH neutral aqueous impregnant solutioning prepared in step b) [0014,0042,0054], thereby impregnating the wood with the pH neutral aqueous impregnant solution prepared in step b) wherein the wood does not receive any physical and/or chemical treatment between step c) and d), at least since steps in Claim 2 can be considered to be included in step c) or step c) and d) and can occur simultaneously [0054].
Regarding Claim 3, US’739 further teaches the following steps: f) when the treatment chamber has reached a desired temperature of step e), maintaining both the applied temperature and pressure for a holding phase; and h) when the holding phase is completed, decreasing both temperature and pressure within the treatment chamber down to ambient temperature and pressure, wherein the wood does not receive any physical and/or chemical treatment between step c) and step d) (Fig. 2).
Regarding Claim 5, the pH neutral aqueous impregnant solution prepared in step b) comprises a reagent (water) suitable for a chemical reaction with the wood, without any additional catalyst [0003].
Regarding Claim 8, the steps of applying increased pressure in step d) and applying increased temperature in step e) are necessarily performed either iteratively or simultaneously to maintain the pressure in the treatment chamber above water’s boiling point when the temperature is increased (Fig. 2).
Regarding Claim 9 the pressure in the treatment chamber is maintained in the range of 5-15 bar for at least a portion of step e) (Fig. 2), which can include some step f) (see also Claim 3 with a step f), for example at around 11 bara, Fig. 2).
Regarding Claim 10, the temperature is increased to above 130 in step e) (Fig. 2).
Regarding Claim 11, the temperature is maintained in the range of 120 degrees C during some step f) (Fig. 2).
Regarding Claim 13, US’739 teaches hydrothermolysis of wood and the production of carboxylic acids [0043] from hemicellulose and lignin [0043], followed by polymerization (Claim 1; [0054]). Therefore, the claimed reaction is inherent in the claimed process.
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.
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) 4 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Willems (US 2010/0143739).
Regarding Claim 4, US’739 fails to teach separate chambers for impregnating the wood and for pressurizing the impregnated wood. However, assembly lines and division of labor is conventional in the prior art, and it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to perform the separate stages taught in US’739 in different chambers in order to move products through an “assembly line” of units performing each step or a combination of steps, taught in US’739).
Regarding Claim 7, US’739 teaches an overlapping range of 3 to 6, which substantially overlaps the recited range. Thus, the recited range is an obvious overlapping range in view of the range in US’739.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Willems (US 2010/0143739) in view of Westin et al. (WO 2004/011216).
Regarding Claim 6, US’739 suggests that impregnating the wood results in furfurals and sugars, including, for example, xylose [0043]. US’739 fails to teach that the impregnant include furfuryl alcohol. Westin et al. (WO’216) is analogous art in the field of wood preservation, including by impregnating and polymerizing wood (Abstract) and teaches a method of modifying wood, wherein the method comprises the steps of: a) selecting and placing wood in a treatment chamber (p. 4, line 14; b) preparing an aqueous impregnant solution comprising at least one reagent (e.g. furfuryl alcohol) suitable for polymerization and/or chemical reaction with the wood (p. 8, lines 7-15); c) impregnating the wood with the aqueous impregnant solution, which includes a weak acid (p. 4, lines 13-23; p. 8, lines 7-15); d) increasing the pressure in the treatment chamber to between 5 and 14 bar (p. 4, lines 17-18) where the temperature range lies below the boiling point of water (152 C) at the lowest pressure of 5 bar (p. 8, lines 7-34); and e) increasing the temperature in the treatment chamber, so that a combined processes of polymerization/chemical reaction of the impregnant occurs (id.). Moreover, polymerization/ curing can include steam (p. 8, lines 27-29). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the process of US’739 by including furfuryl alcohol as a reagent, because WO’216 suggests that an impregnating solution, including furfuryl alcohol in water, aids in polymerization for wood preservation.
Claim(s) 6 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Willems (US 2010/0143739) in view of Bendiksten et al. (WO 2011/144608).
Regarding Claim 6, US’739 suggests that impregnating the wood results in furfurals and sugars, including, for example, xylose [0043]. US’739 fails to teach that the impregnant include furfuryl alcohol. Bendiksten et al. (WO’608) is analogous art in the field of wood preservation through polymerization with an impregnating solution (Abstract), and suggests including furfuryl alcohol and water in an impregnant (p. 2, lines 18-27) and curing (i.e. polymerizing) with steam (Claim 17; p. 8, lines 15-27; p. 4, line 33 to p. 5 line 4). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the process of US’739 by including furfuryl alcohol in the impregnant, because WO’608 suggests that an impregnant including furfuryl alcohol in water will aid in polymerizing wood for preservation.
Regarding Claim 12, US’739 fails to teach engineered wood. WO’608 suggests that the process can be performed to preserve engineered wood (p. 5, lines 31-34). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the process of US’739 by preserving engineered wood, because clearly one would of ordinary skill would have thought to use an obvious process in applications, which include known wood products (e.g. engineered wood), and WO’608 suggests that engineered wood is of the type that one would preserve.
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.
Claim 1-14 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over Claims 1-19 of U.S. Patent No. 12,600,056 in view of Willems (US 2010/0143739).
Although Claims 1-19 of US’056 fail to expressly teach a so-called “neutral pH,” the presence of carboxylic acids (weak acids) suggests a neutral pH, which within Applicant’s usage of the term, includes acidic solutions. In addition, Willems (US’739) is analogous art in the field of wood preservation through impregnation and polymerization, and suggests an obviously overlapping range (see rejection of Claims 1 and 7 above).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Schneider (US 2007/0029279) (wood preservation with an impregnating solution, including furfuryl alcohol)
No claim is allowed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDER M WEDDLE whose telephone number is (571)270-5346. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30-6:30.
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 Cleveland can be reached at 571-272-1418. 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.
ALEXANDER M WEDDLE
Examiner
Art Unit 1712
/ALEXANDER M WEDDLE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1712
Prosecution Insights