RESPONSE TO AMENDMENT
WITHDRAWN REJECTIONS
The 35 U.S.C. §112 rejection of the claims made of record in the office action mailed on 04/03/2026 have been withdrawn due to Applicant’s amendment in the response filed 07/06/2026.
The 35 U.S.C. §102 and §103rejections of the claims made of record in the office action mailed on04/03/2026 have been withdrawn due to Applicant’s amendment in the response filed 07/06/2026.
REJECTIONS
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 21, 25-33 and 90-98 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tagge et al. (U.S. App. Pub. No. 2003/0219580) in view of Paszner et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 4,339,405).
Tagge et al. discloses a construction material, such as cementitious materials, including surface modified reinforcement materials such as fibers and particulates. (Abstract and par. [0008]). The fibers include cellulose fibers which are surface modified with a modifiable group. (par. [0037]). Furthermore, the fibers may include a sizing step which involves coating the fibers with a warp size. (par. [0009]). The fibers are surface treated with a sizing material which includes a film-forming polymer such as a starch or starch derivative, polyvinyl acetate or a natural gum (i.e. an elastomer). (par. [0009]) and [0054]-[0057]). Tagge et al. therefore discloses lignocellulosic fibers having a coupling agent covering the surface area of the lignocellulosic fibers which would generate an adhering layer on the surface of the fibers.
Tagge et al. does not disclose a plurality of mineral particles adhered to the adhering layer formed by sizing agent. (i.e. coupling agent).
Paszner et al. teaches a structure including ligneus plant fragments (i.e. lignocellulosic materials) in the form of fibers (which would include a surface area) in combination with a mineral binder deposit including oxyphosphates an inert filler particle. (Abstract). The plant fibers have the surface coated with an aqueous solution of ammonium polyphosphate (which would be equivalent to the “coupling agent” as claimed) which allows to the surface to be wetted and apply thereon particular mineral solids in the form of a particulate (i.e. a powder, as claimed) such as magnesium or calcium oxide. (col. 6, lines 3-21). The mineral may include magnesium oxide. (col. 6, lines 3-21).
Paszner et al. teaches that it is known in the art that cements may have poor adherence to the surface of the wood-based fiber structures such as hydraulic cement or magnesium oxychloride cement. (col. 2, lines 7-14). Paszner et al. teaches that it is known in the art to treat the surface of the fibers with mineral materials such as magnesium oxides using a binding agent to better bond to the cementitious matrix material. (col. 6, lines 3-12) and to provide improved strength, fire-retardancy and decay resistant properties to the wood-based materials. (col. 7, lines 7-28). The coating process disclosed in Paszner et al. would result in a “substantially uniform” coating as presently claimed.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary to treat the sized fibers disclosed in Tagge et al. with an ammonium polyphosphate-based material and binding the resulting cellulose fiber surface with particular mineral solids, effectively adhering the mineral solids to the sizing layer (i.e. coupling agent layer) disclosed in Tagge et al.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to bind minerals to the surface of the cellulose fibers disclosed in Tagge et al. in order to impart enhanced adhesion with the cement matrix, impart improved strength, fire-retardancy and decay resistance, as discussed in Paszner et al.
With respect to the limitation “through the application via an intermediate suspension”, the limitation is directed to a process limitation for making the claimed product. The method of forming the product is not germane to the issue of patentability of the product itself, unless Applicant presents evidence from which the Examiner could reasonably conclude that the claimed product differs in kind from those of the prior art. MPEP 2113. While Tagge in view of Paszner does not specifically disclose the use of an intermediate suspension, given that Paszner discloses a coating covering the fibers that is substantially uniform as claimed, the claims are rejected due to the lack of any explicit structural differences between the claimed invention and the prior art.
Regarding claims 25-29, the limitations in the claims are directed to the process of making the claimed invention. Given that the limitations to not inherently impart additional structural features to the coated lignocellulosic composite precursor as claimed in claim 21, the claims are rejected for substantially the same reasons as claim 21, above.
Furthermore, with respect to the limitations of claim 29, Paszner et al. teaches that the fibers prior to treatment should be essentially dehydrated (i.e. 0% by weight of water). (col. 6, lines 13-21)
Regarding claims 30 and 32, Paszner teaches that the ammonium polyphosphate reacts with the magnesium oxide grain surface to form magnesium phosphates. (col. 11, lines 1-45 and col. 13, lines 41-52). These magnesium phosphate compounds would meet the limitation of “layering agent” as presently claimed. The magnesium phosphate would act as an adhesive material which bonds the magnesium oxide to the surface of the fibers.
Regarding claim 31, Paszner teaches applying multiple layers of magnesium oxide (using smaller grains prior to the majority of the magnesium oxide grains and reacting the smaller grains with the phosphate compound). (col. 14, line 61 – col. 15, line 5). The magnesium phosphate would act as an adhesive material which bonds the magnesium oxide to the surface of the fibers.
Regarding claim 33, Paszner does not disclose that the magnesium oxide particles are applied by coating the fibers using a treatment comprising a foam with an adhesive. However, the method of forming the product is not germane to the issue of patentability of the product itself, unless Applicant presents evidence from which the Examiner could reasonably conclude that the claimed product differs in kind from those of the prior art. MPEP 2113. Paszner teaches applying multiple layers of magnesium oxide (using smaller grains prior to the majority of the magnesium oxide grains). (col. 14, line 61 – col. 15, line 5). The magnesium phosphate would act as an adhesive material which bonds the magnesium oxide to the surface of the fibers.
Regarding claims 90-91, Paszner teaches that the magnesium oxide particles can be provided in a suspension. (col. 34, lines 28-33). The limitation “treated with a carrier” is considered a product by process limitation which does not further limit the structure of the coated lignocellulose composite precursor of claim 21.
Regarding claim 92, the ether in suspension would be described as an adhesive due to the fact it binds the magnesium oxide particles together (see Example IX, col. 32, lines 40-42). Furthermore, the location of the adhesive agent in the suspension which contains the particles or the on the surface of the fibers (as disclosed in Paszner) does not materially affect the final structural feature of the composite precursor of claim 21, given that the adhesive bonds the mineral powder particles to the fibers. The method of forming the product is not germane to the issue of patentability of the product itself, unless Applicant presents evidence from which the Examiner could reasonably conclude that the claimed product differs in kind from those of the prior art. MPEP 2113. Claim 92 is rejected for substantially the same reasons as claims 21 and 90-91, above.
Regarding claims 93-94, Tagge et al. teaches weaving the fibers into a mat after being coated or treated. (par. [0052]).
Regarding claims 95-98, Paszner teaches inclusion of a cement-forming additive in the form an of ammonium polyphosphate. (Abstract and col. 10, lines 43-52). Paszner further teaches that the ammonium polyphosphate reacts with the magnesium oxide to densify the composite material. (col. 10, line 20 – col. 12, line 19).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include the ammonium polyphosphate in the process of treating the fibers with the mineral oxides in order to densify the composite material as taught by Paszner et al.
ANSWERS TO APPLICANT’S ARGUMENTS
Applicant’s arguments in the response filed 07/06/2026 regarding the prior art rejections made of record in the office action mailed on 04/03/2026 have been considered but are moot due to the new grounds of rejection.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDRE F FERRE whose telephone number is (571)270-5763. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8 am to 4 pm ET.
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, Alicia Chevalier can be reached at 5712721490. 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.
/ALEXANDRE F FERRE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1788 07/14/2026
Prosecution Insights