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 .
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.
Claim Objections
Claim 25 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In line 1 the term “be weight” should read -by weight-.
Appropriate correction is required.
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) 13-24, 26-28, and 30-32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Boitouzet (US20180370071A1).
In reference to claim 13:
Boitouzet discloses a method for preparing a lignocellulosic composite material (abstract), comprising:
(a) impregnating a lignocellulosic material with at least one filling compound (para 0267); and
(b) subsequent to (a), applying a pressure to the lignocellulosic material impregnated with the at least one filling compound to generate the lignocellulosic composite material (para 0268), wherein a tensile strength of the lignocellulosic composite material is greater than a tensile strength of the lignocellulosic material as measured by a traction machine using ISO 527 (paras 0028).
In reference to claim 14:
In addition to the discussion of claim 13, above, Boitouzet further discloses wherein the pressure is at most about 20 bars (paras 0200, 0268, 2.0 MPa is 20 bar).
In reference to claim 16:
In addition to the discussion of claim 13, above, Boitouzet does not explicitly disclose wherein the tensile strength of the lignocellulosic composite material is more than 47 MPa. However, it is the Examiner’s position that as the process steps of Boitouzet are the same as those claimed and the disclosure in Boitouzet of “much greater mechanical strength” (para 0028), the lignocellulosic composite material of Boitouzet will have a tensile strength measured at 0 degree orientation of more than 47 MPa.
In reference to claim 17:
In addition to the discussion of claim 13, above, Boitouzet does not explicitly disclose wherein the tensile strength of the lignocellulosic composite material is at least about 10% greater than the tensile strength of the lignocellulosic material. However, it is the Examiner’s position that as the process steps of Boitouzet are the same as those claimed and the disclosure in Boitouzet of “much greater mechanical strength” (para 0028), the lignocellulosic composite material of Boitouzet will have a tensile strength measured at 0 degree orientation of at least about 10% greater than the tensile strength of the lignocellulosic material.
In reference to claim 18:
In addition to the discussion of claim 13, above, Boitouzet further discloses wherein (b) is performed at a temperature from −50° C. to about 250° C (paras 0220, 0268).
In reference to claim 19:
In addition to the discussion of claim 13, above, Boitouzet further discloses laminating the lignocellulosic composite material (paras 0040, 0044).
In reference to claim 20:
In addition to the discussion of claim 19, above, Boitouzet further discloses laminating two or more sheets of the lignocellulosic composite material (paras 0040, 0044).
In reference to claim 21:
In addition to the discussion of claim 13, above, Boitouzet further discloses wherein the at least one filling compound comprises polymers (para 0173) or monomers (para 0178).
In reference to claim 22:
In addition to the discussion of claim 13, above, Boitouzet further discloses wherein the at least one filling compound comprises resins (para 0213).
In reference to claim 23:
In addition to the discussion of claim 13, above, Boitouzet further discloses hydrating or dissolving cellulose or hemicellulose present within the lignocellulosic material (paras 0132-0142 disclosing the use of sodium hydroxide).
In reference to claim 24:
In addition to the discussion of claim 13, above, Boitouzet further discloses delignifying the lignocellulosic material (para 0144).
In reference to claim 26:
In addition to the discussion of claim 13, above, Boitouzet further discloses (i) washing the lignocellulosic material (para 0150).
In reference to claim 27:
In addition to the discussion of claim 26, above, Boitouzet further discloses further comprising impregnating the lignocellulosic material or the lignocellulosic composite material with an additive (para 0182-0183).
In reference to claim 28:
In addition to the discussion of claim 27, above, Boitouzet further discloses wherein the method comprises impregnating or coating the lignocellulosic material with the additive (para 0182-0183).
In reference to claim 30:
In addition to the discussion of claim 27, above, Boitouzet further discloses wherein the additive comprises fire-retarding agents (para 0189) or surfactants (para 0182-0183).
In reference to claim 31:
In addition to the discussion of claim 13, above, Boitouzet further discloses wherein the lignocellulosic material comprises a plank (para 0266-0268, Figs. 2-3).
In reference to claim 32:
In addition to the discussion of claim 13, above, Boitouzet further discloses wherein an architecture of the lignocellulosic material is substantively preserved in the lignocellulosic composite material (para 0266-0268, Figs. 2-3).
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.
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) 15 and 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boitouzet.
In reference to claim 15:
In addition to the discussion of claim 13, above, Boitouzet does not explicitly disclose wherein the tensile strength of the lignocellulosic composite material and the tensile strength of the lignocellulosic material are measured at a 0° orientation as measured by an angle with a longitudinal direction of a fiber of the lignocellulosic composite material or the lignocellulosic material. However, it is the Examiner’s position that it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to measure the tensile strength in the direction deemed important.
In reference to claim 25:
In addition to the discussion of claim 24, above, Boitouzet does not explicitly disclose wherein from about 0.5% to 99%, be weight, of lignin present within the lignocellulosic material is removed. However, “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). As applied to the instant application, Boitouzet discloses that the washing step may be carried out one or more times “until extraction is attained that is satisfactory, or even total, relative to the amount of dissolved lignin at the soaking step” (para 0150). As the prior art discloses the removal of lignin “that is satisfactory”, discovering the optimum or workable range of 0.5%-99% through routine experimentation is not inventive.
Claim(s) 29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boitouzet as applied to claim 27, above, and further in view of Ni (US20220372749A1).
In addition to the discussion of claim 27, above, Boitouzet further discloses wherein the part is a component of a building (para 0024) but does not explicitly disclose wherein the method comprises coating the lignocellulosic composite material with the additive. However, this would be obvious in view of Ni. Ni teaches a panel useful as structural sheathing (abstract), e.g. a component of a building. Ni further teaches using a fire-resistance treatment which may be integrated with the material forming the panel or may be a coating layer applied to the panel (abstract). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the method of Boitouzet with the coating of Ni in order to obtain a sheathing panel with fire resistance.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW L SWANSON whose telephone number is (571)272-1724. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 0800-1900 and every other Friday 0800-1600.
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, Phillip Tucker can be reached at (571)272-1095. 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.
/ANDREW L SWANSON/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1745
Prosecution Insights