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
Claims 1 and 12 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claims 1 and 12, these claims contain capitalized words (for example, “Providing” in line 4 of claim 1) throughout the claims. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 1-17 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.
Regarding claim 1, this claim recites the phrase “the mixture” in line 11. However, it is unclear if this phrase refers to the term “mixtures” of line 4 or the phrase “a mixture” of line 9. Clarification is required.
Regarding claim 12, this claim recites the steps of (i), (ii) and (iii). However, it is unclear how the claimed determining feature is related to the recited steps of (i), (ii) and (iii). It appears that the use of the term “and/or” makes the intended scope of claim unclear since the specification and drawings lack description related to these steps. Clarification is required.
Claims not specifically mention above are rejected by virtue of their dependency on a rejected claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 3-7, 9 and 13-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Cowan et al (US 2007/0131862 A).
Regarding claim 1, as far as the claim is understood, Cowan et al discloses a method for determining the amount of at least one biodegradable powdery binder (paragraph 42; soy-protein based resins) in a mixture with wood particles, the steps of providing mixtures of at least one powdery binder and wood particles as reference samples, wherein the at least one powdery binder and wood particles are present in the mixtures in quantitatively defined mixing ratios in each case (paragraphs 13, 31), recording of at least one NIR spectrum of the reference samples using at least one NIR measuring head in a wavelength range of 900 nm to 1700 nm (paragraphs 13, 30-34; note that Cowan et al discloses [paragraph 13] the use of NIR radiation in a wavelength range of 1200 nm to 2400 nm encompassing 1200 nm to 1700 nm, which reads on the claimed range), providing a mixture to be measured consisting of at least one powdery binder and wood particles (paragraph 36), recording of at least one NIR spectrum of the mixture of the at least one powdery binder with wood particles using the at least one NIR measuring head in a wavelength range of 900 nm to 1700 nm (paragraphs 13 and 36), and determining the quantitative amount of powdery binder and wood particles by comparison with the NIR spectra recorded for the reference samples (paragraphs 11-13).
Regarding claims 3-5 and 13-14, the limitations therein are disclosed in paragraph 13 of Cowan et al (note that Cowan et al discloses [paragraph 13] the use of NIR radiation in a wavelength range of 1200 nm to 2400 nm encompassing the claimed ranges).
Regarding claims 6 and 15, the limitations therein are disclosed in paragraph 42 of Cowan et al.
Regarding claims 7 and 16, Cowan et al discloses the use of soy-protein based resins (paragraph 42).
Regarding claim 9, the limitations therein are disclosed in paragraph 16 of Cowan et al.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 2, 8, 10-12 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cowan et al (US 2007/0131862 A).
Regarding claims 2, 8 and 17, the specific scheme utilized for measuring spectral data and the specific material utilized for producing a biodegradable binder would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in view of meeting different design requirements and achieving the particular desired performance.
Regarding claims 10-12, the specific scheme and configuration utilized for determining the amount of powdery in a mixture and for producing wood-based panels would have been an obvious design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art depending on the needs of particular application and involving only routine skill in the art.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Hasch et al (US 2026/0063545 A1) is cited for disclosing a method for determining resin penetration into coating material. Mbachu et al (US 2004/0094853 A1) is cited for disclosing a method for monitoring resin-loading of wood materials.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEVIN K PYO whose telephone number is (571)272-2445. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00-5:30 PM.
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, Georgia Y Epps can be reached at 571-272-2328. 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.
/KEVIN K PYO/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2878
Prosecution Insights