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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 23 September 2024 has been considered by the examiner.
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.
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.
1. Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 5,652,065 to Park et al. (“Park”) in view of US 2005/0277733 to Wescott et al. (“Wescott”).
With regard to Claim 1, Park teaches a wood product comprising wooden elements treated with a loading solution, partially dried, and subjected to heat and pressure to a desired degree of cure (see Abstract; Col. 2, Lns. 27-29; Col. 3, Lns. 18-23; Col. 7, Lns. 53-56; Col. 11, Lns. 11-31). According to Park thus-treated wooden elements exhibit an increased parallel-to-grain bending modulus value as compared to untreated elements (see FIG. 5; Col. 4, Lns. 20-23).
Park teaches loading with a plurality of isocyanate resins and drying to a suitable degree of moisture as a co-reactant (see Col. 7, Lns. 17-49). To the extent that the reference does not expressly contemplate such isocyanate resins as water-blocking agents, Wescott is directed to water-resistant adhesive compositions suitable for use in bonding wood laminates, and teaches infiltrating veneer materials with a water-blocking agent to render improved durability (see Abstract; ¶¶ [0004], [0008], [0013]-[0017], [0051]-[0052], [0057], [0132]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have infiltrated veneers in the wood product of Park with a water-blocking agent, as taught by Wescott, and to have executed a drying step thereafter to achieve a desired degree of moisture as a co-reactant in order to obtain a wood product with improved durability.
With regard to Claim 2, Park teaches treated wooden veneer elements (see Abstract; Col. 1, Lns. 9-10).
With regard to Claims 3 and 8, Park teaches products comprising treated and untreated wooden elements and remarks on demand for exploiting all sources of wood and wood fiber materials, and indicates routine usage of strand materials in wooden products (see Col. 1, Lns. 45-51; Col. 12; Lns. 27-30; Col. 12, Lns. 53-55). Park does not expressly teach treating strand elements; however it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have treated any type of wood elements routinely used in wooden products in view of the recognition of demand for efficient use of materials.
With regard to Claim 4, Park teaches products comprising treated and untreated wooden elements (see Col. 12; Lns. 27-30).
With regard to Claim 5, Park teaches I-joist products composed of treated wooden elements (see Col. 12, Lns. 41-54).
With regard to Claim 6, Park teaches plywood products composed of multiple treated plies (see Col. 3, Lns. 22-23).
With regard to Claim 7, Park teaches non-destructive bending modulus testing of treated wooden elements (see Col. 13, Lns. 30-36). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have selected wooden elements featuring minimum specified bending modulus properties, including values within the claimed range, in manufacturing wood products suitable for use in construction.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Michael P Rodriguez whose telephone number is (571)270-3736. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 - 6:00 Eastern 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, 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.
/Michael P. Rodriguez/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1712