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 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 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, 2, 9, 10, 15, 16, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by D1 (US 20070131862 A1).
With regards to claim 1, D1 discloses a non-destructive method for determining the quantity and/or the composition of at least one layer of at least one powdered resin or resin mixture applied to at least one carrier material [0012, 0018, 0042] (Abstract) comprising the steps of
- Applying at least one powdered resin or a powdered mixture of at least two resins in a defined mixing ratio in different quantitatively defined quantities to a carrier material as reference samples [0013, 0031, 0042, 0049, 0069, 0071];
- Recording at least one NIR spectrum of each of the reference samples using at least one NIR measuring head in a wavelength range of 700 nm to 2000 nm [0006, 0012, 0015] (Claim 1);
- Correlating the different quantitative amounts of powdered resin or resin mixture of the reference samples to the recorded NIR spectra of said reference samples [0013, 0030-0034, 0069-0071]; and
- Creating a calibration model for the relationship between the spectral data of the NIR spectra and the corresponding quantitative quantities of powdered resin or resin mixture of the reference samples by means of multivariate data analysis [0013, 0019-0021, 0063-0064];
- Applying at least one layer of at least one powdered resin or resin mixture to a carrier material [0036],
- Recording at least one NIR spectrum of the carrier material coated with the powdered resin or resin mixture using the at least one NIR measuring head in a wavelength range of 700 nm to 2000 nm [0016, 0020, 0064] (Claim 1); and
- Determining the quantitative amount of powdered resin or resin mixture applied to the carrier material by comparing the NIR spectrum recorded for the coated carrier material with the calibration model created [0011-0013, 0068-0073] (Claim 1).
With regards to claim 2, D1 discloses a formaldehyde resin [0042].
With regards to claims 9 and 20, D1 discloses an OSB wood based carrier material [0012, 0018, 0019].
With regards to claim 10, D1 discloses wherein spectral data from the entire recorded spectral range are used to determine the amount of powdered resin or resin mixture applied [0013-0025, 0049].
With regards to claim 15, D1 discloses using the at least one NIR measuring head in a wavelength range of 900 nm to 1700 nm [0015].
With regards to claim 16, D1 discloses wherein the powdered resin is a urea resin, a melamine resin or a phenolic resin [0042].
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 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 of this title, 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.
Claims 3-8, 11-14, and 17-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over D1.
With regards to claims 3, 4, and 17, D1 does not expressly teach wherein a mixture comprises a first powdered resin and a second powdered resin having the claimed ratio. However, D1 does teach wherein the mixture may comprise a powdered resin [0042] and other resins [0012]. Since D1 contemplates combinations of resins and mixtures of powder resins were conventionally applied as layers to wood based carriers, it would have been well known, obvious, and predictably suitable to one with ordinary skill in the art to modify D1 with the claimed mixture in order to analyze known resin formulations and yield predictable results. Furthermore, selecting the claimed resin ratio would have been obvious depending upon a desired hardness, gloss, or other physical characteristic.
With regards to claim 5, D1 does not specify the claimed components. However, those skilled in the art recognize that such components, when added, can provide color or protective properties. As such, in view of the recited benefits, it would have been well known, obvious, and predictably suitable to one with ordinary skill in the art to modify D1 with one of the claimed components.
With regards to claims 6, 7, 18, and 19, D1 does not teach the claimed amounts. However, those skilled in the art recognize that the specific amounts of resin(s) depend upon a desired property or improvement in manufacturing. Therefore, it would have been well known, obvious, and predictably suitable to one with ordinary skill in the art to modify D1 with the claimed amounts in view of the recited benefit.
With regards to claim 8, D1 does not teach the claimed paper layer. Nevertheless, paper sheets are generally known to be disposed on wood products and also containing melamine resin impregnated cellulose fibers. Modifying D1 with the claimed carrier would have been an obvious substitution.
With regards to claims 11 and 14, D1 does not teach wherein the determination of the amount of powdered resin or resin mixture applied to the carrier material is carried out continuously and online several times in a production line, but does teach wherein the method is applicable to the manufacture of wood based products [0019]. It would have been well known, obvious, and predictably suitable to one with ordinary skill in the art to modify D1 with continuous and online determination several times in a production line in order to provide immediate feedback in the production process.
With regards to claims 12 and 13, D1 does not teach the claimed steps of moving the measuring head as claimed. However, D1 does teach a measuring head comprises a rapid scanning system [0015] to perform a plurality of scans [0015, 0033]. It would have been well known, obvious, and predictably suitable to one with ordinary skill in the art to modify D1 with the claimed method step in order to scan across the entire length and width of the carrier to measure the edges and center regions.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARCUS H TANINGCO whose telephone number is (571)272-1848. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-6pm EST.
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, Uzma Alam can be reached on 571-272-3995. 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.
/MARCUS H TANINGCO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2884
Prosecution Insights