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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claim 20 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected group, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 9/5/26.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. The claims have no upper limit of the range while claim 1 as an upper limit of 52. Therefore this broadens the range. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
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 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.
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) 1, 4, and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Smart et al.(WO 03/000475).
Smart et al. discloses a method of making an engineered wood board comprising blending resin with wood strands, forming a strand mat, and applying heat and pressure to form a board.(Pg. 6, ll. 3-28; Pg. 16, ll. 20-22, Figures) The resin is present in a weight of 8%.(Pg. 19, ll. 12) The density of the formed panel is 740 kg/m3.(Pg. 19, ll.17) Both of these data pints are within the claimed ranges.
Regarding claim 4, the resin phenol formaldehyde.(Pg. 8, ll. 11)
Regarding claim 15, the board has a density of 46.8 pcf.(Pg. 19, ll. 17)
Claim(s) 1-6, 8, 13, 18, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Xue et al.(CN 108214795).
Regarding claim 1 and 19, Xue et al. discloses a method of making OSB by blending resin with wood strands, forming a strand mat, and applying heat and pressure to form a board.(claim 1) The resin is present in a weight of 6.7 wt%.(claim 1) The density of the formed panel is 692 kg/m3.(claim 1, step 4) The disclosed ranges either anticipating or rendering obvious the recited range. When the prior art discloses a range which touches or overlaps the claimed range, such range anticipates if the prior art range discloses the claimed range with sufficient specificity. MPEP 2131.03. Alternatively, in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990); MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claims 2 and 3, Xue et al. discloses forming a face layer of strand and resin and placing it on the first layer and laying up a third layer and laying it on the second.(Example 1, Claim 1, step 3)
Regarding claims 4 and 5, the resin in all the layers is MDI.(claim 1, step 3)
Regarding claim 6, Xue et al. discloses this forms a three layer board, so the outer layers would be the face layers.(Example 2)
Regarding claim 8, Xue et a. discloses the core layer has a resin content of 6.7% and the face layer has a resin content of 6.9%.(Claim 1)
Regarding claim 13, while Xue et al. does not disclose what affects the density of the board, one in the art would understand that both the amount of pressure and the temperature would determine the density of the final product.
Regarding claims 18 and 19, the core strands are 90 degrees to the face strands.(Background)
Claim(s) 1, 4, and 13-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Via et al.(US Publication 2017/0266930)).
Regarding claim 1, and 14-17, Via et al. discloses a method of making OSB by blending resin with wood strands, forming a strand mat, and applying heat and pressure to form a board.[0062] The resin is present in a weight of 0.5-20 wt%.[0059] The density of the formed panel is 20-60 pcf.[0072] The disclosed ranges either anticipating or rendering obvious the recited range. When the prior art discloses a range which touches or overlaps the claimed range, such range anticipates if the prior art range discloses the claimed range with sufficient specificity. MPEP 2131.03. Alternatively, in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990); MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 4, the resin is MDI.[0082]
Regarding claim 13, while Via et al. does not disclose what affects the density of the board, one in the art would understand that both the amount of pressure and the temperature would determine the density of the final product.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 2, 3, 5-12, 18, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Via et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Xue et al.
Regarding claims 2 and 3, while Via et al. discloses a board with face and core layers, it does not disclose how this is made.[0061] Xue et al. discloses a board is made by separately adding resin to ace and core layers and stacking the up during the formation process.(Example 1, Claim 1, step 3) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time of filing to make the board by separately mixing the resin with the different layers and layering them up since this is extremely well-known and conventional in the board arts as shown for example by Xue et al.(Example 1, claim 1, step 3)
Regarding claim 5, Via et al. discloses the layers can all contain MDI resin.[0050]
Regarding claim 6, Via et al. discloses face and core layers.[0061]
Regarding claims 7-11, Via et al. discloses a broad range of resin, and one in the art would appreciate that the specific amount of resin used would be within the ability of one of ordinary skill in the art to determine absent unexpected results.
Regarding claim 12, Via et al. discloses the binder in one layer can be modified while the binder in another is not.(Claim 8)
Regarding claims 18 and 19, Xue et al. the core strands are 90 degrees to the face strands.(Background) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time of filing to have the layers oriented in different directions since this is extremely well-known and conventional in the board arts as shown for example by Xue et al.(Background)
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BARBARA J MUSSER whose telephone number is (571)272-1222. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30-4:30 M-Th; 7:30-3:30 second Fridays.
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 Orlando can be reached at 571-270-5038. 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.
BARBARA J. MUSSER
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1746
/BARBARA J MUSSER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1746
Prosecution Insights