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 .
Claims 1-9 are pending and under examination.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: the claim does not end in a period. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities: the claim does not end in a period. Appropriate correction is required.
Applicant is advised that should claim 8 be found allowable, claim 9 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 § 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.
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 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brooks (US Patent No. 5,624,616), in view of Ioffe et al. (US Patent No. 5,955,023), hereinafter Ioffe.
Regarding claims 1-7, Brooks discloses a process of producing a wood product comprising: (a) blending wood chips (5:62-6:15; 7:10) with lignin (7:10-7:20; 8:6-8:16, the Kraft paper below would add extra lignin to the mixture) prior to and during refining [9:30-9:32 explains that the feed screw augers the unrefined mixture (see 3:51-3:67 for the Kraft papers in addition to the wood material as this is the material in the mixture) into the dual revolving discs or refiner; see also 8:17-9:47] in a “blender” (claim 3) with a “plug screw” (claim 2) (9:30-9:32) and 7:24-7:26 explains that the blending/mixing and “preheating” steps occur concurrently as to occur during the refining;
(d) forming a mat from the resinated material, and (e) compressing or molding said mat producing a wood product (“fiberboard”) at elevated temperature (10:45-10:60).
Brooks, 3:51-3:67 explains that Kraft papers can be added to the mixture, and specifically states that the paper component can provide “additional lignocellulose material” (lignin) to the mixture.
Additionally, 11:35-11:40 describes hot pressing the fibers into a “fiberboard” at a higher temperature which inherently means that they were first formed into a board shape or “a mat” as in step (d) above, prior to hot compression using the conventional methods described.
The result of this placement/compression is inherently a “molded product” as in claim 5 and a “particle board” or “fiber based insulation board” as in claims 6-7 under the claims’ BRI. Additionally, Brooks further discloses (3:65-3:67) the incorporation of lignocellulose material via Kraft papers (3:51-3:67) as to provide additional lignin to the mixture prior to refining as is also required by the claim as now amended.
Brooks further discloses (b) refining by cooking said compressed wood material from the digester by injection of pressure steam (7:20-7:65) producing refined fibers (7:66-8:40), and blending the refined fibers with thermoplastic during the refining step (3:5-3:22; 3:51-3:67; 8:41-8). Brooks also discloses (claim 4) the use of a blow line (10:30-10:31) as to incorporate/set the thermoplastic material which would also dry the material (in Brooks: lignin and added PF resins, 10:65-11:5).
Brooks does not explicitly disclose the temperature of the steam within the digester is between 130-180 C or that the lignin is derived from black liquor; or the isocyanate as adhesive.
However, Brooks further discloses the injection of the pressure steam is at a temperature of about 192 C (Brooks, 7:28-7:43) which is extremely close to the end point of 180 C, or “at least 160 C” (Brooks, 6:25-6:27; 9:50-9:56) which specifically overlaps with the claimed range of 130-180 C.
It has been held that where the prior art discloses a range that overlaps with or lies inside of the claimed range, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the above to specify that the temperature range of the pressured steam is as claimed.
Regarding the lignin derived from black liquor and wood mixture, with isocyanate as adhesive, Ioffe discloses a similar process to that of Brooks above in that Ioffe likewise produces a composite from lignocellulosic materials and an adhesive (Ioffe, abstract). Ioffe describes using added lignin derived from liquor (Ioffe, 7:40-7:67) that can include at least kraft lignin, lignosulfonate, organosolv lignin (Ioffe, 8:1-8:45). Ioffe further discloses the wood “strands” or chips (Ioffe, Examples, 16:24-16:30), demonstrating that the adhesive would be suitable for a similar type of wood chips/fibers as in Brooks above.
Ioffe further explains that the lignin is compatible with isocyanates (Ioffe, 8:55) which can be used to promote bonding with the wood material (Ioffe, 8:45-8:55) as the wood material is blended with the lignin (Ioffe, 9:66-10:2). Ioffe further explains that the lignin does not cross-link until heated (Ioffe, 11:3-11:35) and compressed (Ioffe, 11:35-11:56) together as a mat, and can be blended with an adhesive after being blended with the wood (Ioffe, 15:50-15:62), which eliminates the need to preprocess the lignin (Ioffe, 15:63-16:9).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success from using either the adhesive/lignin of Brooks or Ioffe above, in that both adhesives have been demonstrated to be suitable for bonding lignocellulosic materials together as to form a composite. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the above to have specified that the lignin is blended with the wood as to promote bonding between the wood chips/fibers as the material is compressed and heated into its final form, as is required in the claims.
Regarding claims 8-9, Brooks/Ioffe discloses the subject matter of claim 1, and further discloses that the lignin can be optionally added in the form of a kraft paper lignin (Brooks, 3:5-3:16; 3:51-3:67; 6:39-6:55) which would be chips/powder form (Ioffe, 9:66-10:2) when put into the refiner, or “prior to refining” as described above as they would have been blended previously.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW D GRAHAM whose telephone number is (469)295-9232. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30AM-4:00PM (CST).
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, Christina Johnson can be reached at (571) 272-1176. 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 D GRAHAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1742
Prosecution Insights