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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 12/09/2025 has been entered. No amendment has been made and claims 21-40 have been argued by the applicant. Therefore, claims 21-40 are now pending in the application.
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.
Claim(s) 21-26 and 33-40 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hood John Samuel (GB – 1153801) and further in view of SZABO IMRE Dr (HU – 226783 B1, Examiner disclose English machined translation in previous office action).
As per claim 21, Hood discloses Packing Insulating Material Wood Wool Strands comprising:
a wooden spring formed of a strip of wood for forming wooden spring fabric (wood-wool having curled strands, Col: 1, Fig: 1-3), wherein the wooden spring has a homogeneous shape, the wooden springs are interlaceable side by side with at least two other wooden springs (This shortening of adjacent curled strands in web causes them to interlock one with another, without losing their original length-wise orientation, Page 2, Ln: 32-37, Fig: 5-8) and the wooden spring comprises:
a helix (in other words, the curled strands can be likened to helical springs capable of extension or compression, Page 2, Ln: 46-48, Fig: 1-8) having a first end and a second end (Fig: 1), wherein the first end has a diameter and the second end has a diameter (Fig: 1), and
a plurality of coils between the first end and the second end of the helix (Fig: 1, 5-8), wherein:
an average thickness of the helix is 0.2 to 2.0 millimeters (mm)(0.075 to 0.375 m/m thick, Claim 1);
an average width of the helix is 2 to 10 mm (cut 1.5 to 1.75 m/m wide, Claim 1).
Hood discloses all the structural elements of the claimed invention but fails to explicitly disclose
an average diameter of the coil is 6 to 60 mm;
an average pitch of the coil is 4 to 40 mm; and
a stretched-out length of the wooden spring is 10 to 5000 mm.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to make an average diameter of the coil is 6 to 60 mm; an average pitch of the coil is 4 to 40 mm; and a stretched-out length of the wooden spring is 10 to 5000 mm, since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. MPEP – 2144.05, III. C.
Hood discloses all the structural elements of the claimed invention but fails to explicitly disclose wherein the wood spring has a homogeneous shape.
Szabo discloses Energy Storing Spring From Wood comprising:
wherein the wood spring has a homogeneous shape (it will be possible to produce even helical springs so that the spring gauge is homogeneous and the spring constant is in the range of industrial application, Description, [0015], and also showed homogeneous helical spring, Fig: 3, 6 ).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modified the Parking Insulating Material Wood Wool Strands of the Wood to make the wooden spring has a homogeneous shape as taught by Szabo in order to provide directional movement or flexible load-bearing or possible vibration damping.
As per claim 22, Hood discloses all the structural elements of the claimed invention but fails to explicitly disclose wherein the average width is greater than an average distance between the two coils being side by side.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to make the average width is greater than an average distance between the two coils being side by side, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. MPEP – 2144.05. III C.
As per claim 23, Hood discloses wherein a position of the first end is different than a position of the second end (Fig: 2-3), and wherein the wooden spring comprises at least one of the following:
a distance of the first end or the second end from a first coil is less than the average pitch (Fig: 1-8);
the first end is at least partially turned onto an outer side of the wooden spring (Fig: 5-8);
the second end is at least partially turned onto an outer side of the wooden spring (Fig: 5-8);
the first end is at least partially turned onto an inner side of the wooden spring; or the second end is at least partially turned onto an inner side of the wooden spring (Fig: 5-8).
As per claim 24, Hood discloses all the structural elements of the claimed invention but fails to explicitly disclose wherein the average diameter of the first end of the wooden spring is smaller than the average diameter of the second end of the wooden spring.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have the average diameter of the first end of the wooden spring is smaller than the average diameter of the second end of the wooden spring, since the examiner takes Official Notice of the equivalent of wood spring of the Hood and wood spring of instant application for their use in the spring art and the selection of any of these known equivalent to the average diameter of the first end of the wooden spring is smaller than the average diameter of the second end of the wooden spring, would be within the level of ordinary skill in the art.
As per claim 25, Hood discloses wherein the wooden spring comprises one or more breaking markers (Any natural material discontinuation and/or discoloration on the surface of the curled stands (Fig: 1) can be considered as braking markers).
As per claim 26, Hood discloses wherein a cross-sectional shape of the wooden spring is circular, elliptical, or chain-linked shaped (Fig: 1-3).
As per claim 33, Hood discloses wherein two or more side-by-side wooden springs are interlaced to each other through the coils of the wooden springs (Fig: 1, 5-8).
As per claim 34, Hood discloses wherein the interlaced wooden springs form a multi-layered and/or multi-columnar wooden spring fabric (Fig: 5-8).
As per claim 35, Hood discloses all the structural elements of the claimed invention but fails to explicitly disclose wherein axes of the wooden springs in respect of the side of the wooden fabric is at angle a 70 to 115 degrees or angle B 25 to 65 degrees.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to make the axes of the wooden springs in respect of the side of the wooden fabric is at angle a 70 to 115 degrees or angle B 25 to 65 degrees, since it has been held that where the general condition of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routines skill in the art. MPEP – 2144, III. C.
As per claim 36, Hood discloses wherein axes of the wooden springs are oriented in a direction of a longer side of the wooden fabric or oriented in a direction of a normal of a side surface of the wooden spring fabric (Fig: 1, 5-8).
As per claim 37, Hood discloses for packing material, for package filling material, for packaging, for making a curtain, for making a mattress, or for making an interior or design elements (This invention related to the production of wood-wool and packing or insulating material made therefrom, Page 1, Ln: 8-10).
As per claim 38, Hood discloses wherein the wooden spring is made of one or both of wood or an at least partially woody material (it is (such as a cementitious slurry) to produce, preferred to employ straight-grained timber of after suitable maturing, a lightweight slab fairly slow growth, a minimum od sapwood, Page 2, Ln: 8-15).
As per claims 39 and 40, Hood discloses wood material but fails to explicitly disclose wherein the at least partially woody material includes bamboo (claim 39) and wherein the at least partially woody material includes reed (Claim 40).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to use the at least partially woody material includes bamboo or reed, since it has been held to be within the general skill of worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. MPEP – 2144.07.
Claim(s) 27-29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Voros et al. (US – 2015/0226278 A1).
As per claim 27, Voros discloses Wooden Spring and Manufactured with Wooden Spring comprising:
a helix dryer ([0086] – [0088], Fig: 15) for making a wooden spring having a homogeneous shape (Fig: 15), wherein the wooden springs are interlaceable side by side with at least two other wooden springs (Fig: 2-3) for forming wooden spring fabric, the helix dryer comprising:
a tubular spring forming means (Attached figure and Fig: 15) having a first end (Attached figure and Fig: 15) and a second end and (Attached figure and Fig: 15) comprising a helical groove (Attached figure and Fig: 15) formed on an outer surface of the tubular spring forming means;
a heat source adapted to heat the tubular spring forming means to 60 to 300 degrees Celsius ([0088], Fig: 15); and
a drive mechanism comprising one or more transmission means (Attached figure and Fig: 15), in the form of a belt or chain (Fig: 15), attached around the tubular spring forming means and a drive adapted to move the one or more transmission means along the helical groove of the spring shape forming means to drag a strip of wood between the transmission means and a bottom of the helical groove of the tubular spring forming means and to pull the strip of wood along the helical groove and wind the strip of wood into a wooden spring ([0071], [0086] – [0091], Fig: 15).
Voros discloses all the structural elements of the claimed invention but fails to explicitly disclose heat the tubular spring forming means to 60 to 300 degrees Celsius.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to heat source adapted to heat the tubular spring forming means to 60 to 300 degrees Celsius, since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. MPEP – 2144, III. C.
PNG
media_image1.png
588
672
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As per claim 28, Voros discloses wherein the heat source is adapted to heat the tubular spring forming means at least from inside of the tubular spring forming means or outside the tubular spring forming means ([0088], Fig: 15).
As per claim 29, Voros discloses wherein the helix dryer further comprises sanding mechanism (90, Fig: 15).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 30-32 are allowed.
Prior art and teaching reference fail to disclose automatically determining a category of the strip of wood, controlled by a machine vision system, wherein the determining comprises:
obtaining a digital information of the strip of wood by photographing the strip of wood;
analyzing the digital information in an automated sorting system by a machine vision; and
based on the analyzed digital information, allocating to the strip of wood one or more categories and sorting the strip of wood based on the allocated one or more categories, by the automated sorting system.
Claims 31 and 32 depend on claim 30.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/09/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In page 9-12, the applicant argued that “Hood fails to teach or suggest a wooden spring comprising helical structure as recited in claim 21”, “Hood further fails to teach or suggest that “the wooden springs are interlaceable side by side with at least two other wooden springs”, “Hood fails to teach or suggest forming a shaped spring body from the strands, or bending, compacting, laminating, or machining the strands into any special curve” and “Hood fails to teach or suggest wooden springs comprising a helix as recited in independent claim 21”. Further, applicant also argued that “there is no motivation to modify the wood wool strands of Hood to make wooden springs as taught by Szabo. For example, Szabo describes energy-storing springs made from solid wood, typically laminated or compacted. Szabo, abstract, page 1, paragraph 3. Szabo describes that the wood is cut from lumber into logs of size that fit a machine, softened by heating or steaming, compacted in a compactor to cause the fiber walls to fold, and then formed into cylindrical, conical, spiral, or tension springs. Szabo, page 3, paragraph 1, page 2, paragraph 2, claim 1. In other words, Szabo teaches the manufacturing of wooden springs from engineered solid bodies instead of from fibrous strands. Modifying the wood wool strands of Hood to make wooden springs as taught by Szabo would require converting Hood's loosely curled, fragile, fibrous strands into solid wood that may be compacted”. And finally argued that “Accordingly, because the combination of Hood and Szabo fails to disclose, teach, or suggest each and every feature of independent claim 21, the combination of Hood and Szabo is not sufficient to establish a prima facie obviousness rejection of claim 21”.
In response to applicant’s arguments the examiner respectfully disagrees. First Hood discloses “Wood-wool consists of thin strands machined from billets of timber in a direction parallel to the grain (Page 1, Col; !, Ln: 11-13), therefore, its same as wooden spring formed of a strip of wood for forming wooden spring fabric, and also disclose “This shorting of adjacent curled strands in a web causes them to interlock one with another, without losing their lengthwise orientation” (Page 2, Col: 1, Ln: 32-37, Fig: 5-8), so its disclose ‘the wooden springs are interlaceable side by side and further discloses “the curled strands can be likened to helical springs capable of extension or compression” (Page 2, Col: 1, Ln: 46-48) that is helix and finally discloses average thickness of helix 0.275 to 0.375 m/m thick and cut 1.5 to 1.75 m/m (between the range of 0.2 to 2.0 mm and 2 to 10 mm.
Therefore, Hood discloses all limitations recited in independent claim 21 except for an average diameter of the coil is 6 to 60 mm;
an average pitch of the coil is 4 to 40 mm; and
a stretched-out length of the wooden spring is 10 to 5000 mm and wooden spring has homogeneous shape.
Regarding average diameter, pitch and stretched-out length of the wooden spring is base on intendent use of the apparatus and its suitability for the intended use of the apparatus therefore it’s a matter of obvious design choice.
Regarding homogeneous shape of the spring the examiner teaches Szabo reference. Szabo also disclose that “The spring is comprised of a spatial curve and is made of laminated wood. The spring is able to provide energy storing and energy releasing operations since its geometry is similar to that of metal springs.” (Abstract) so that same wooden spring art describe in Hood and further clearly showed in Fig: 3, 6 that wooden sprig are homogeneous.
Therefore, Hood as modified by Szabo disclosed all the limitations recited in independent claim 21 and therefore, rejection of claim 21 over Hood and further in view of Szabo is proper for the reason set forth above and maintained the rejection.
Regarding independent claim 27, the applicant also argued that “Voros fails to teach or suggest each and every element recited in claim 27. For example, for at least the reasons described below, Voros fails to teach or suggest a tubular spring forming means "comprising a helical groove formed on an outer surface of the tubular spring forming means" and "a drive mechanism comprising one or more transmission means, in the form of a belt or chain, attached around the tubular spring forming means and a drive adapted to move the one or more transmission means along the helical groove of the spring shape forming means to drag a strip of wood between the transmission means and a bottom of the helical groove of the tubular spring forming means and to pull the strip of wood along the helical groove and wind the strip of wood into a wooden spring," as recited in claim 27” , and “Voros further fails to teach or suggest a drive mechanism adapted to form the helical spring as recited in claim 27. While Fig. 15 of Voros shows a chain-like structure, Voros fails to teach or suggest that the chain-like structure is a drive mechanism, and in particular, a drive mechanism attached around a tubular spring forming means”.
In response to applicants arguments the examiner respectfully dis agrees. Claim 27 is helix dryer for making a wooden spring. Voros discloses FIG. 15 illustrates an example of a reel and a guide reel for winding the slat to form a wooden coil, according to an aspect of the present disclosure.
In FIG: 15, Voros discloses showed homogeneous wood spring with reel with helical groove (see markup drawing above), first end and second end (see markup drawing above) and driving mechanism with chain drive (see markup drawing above) and heat source in paragraph 88. Require temperature (60to 300 degree Celsius) is base on wood species and dimension, therefore require temperature is basis of its suitability for the material and a matter of design choice.
Therefore, the rejection of independent claim 27 over Voros is proper for the reason set forth above and maintained the rejection.
Claims 22-26, 28-29, and 33-40 depend directly or indirectly on claims 21 and 27 accordingly and therefore reject over Hood John Samuel (GB – 1153801) and further in view of SZABO IMRE Dr (HU – 226783 B1) and Voros et al. (US – 2015/0226278 A1)(Claims 28-29) are proper for the reason set forth above and maintained the rejection.
Claims 30-32 are still allowable.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 SAN M AUNG whose telephone number is (571)270-5792. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 AM - 5:30 PM.
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, Robert Siconolfi can be reached at 571-272-7124. 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.
/SAN M AUNG/Examiner, Art Unit 3616
/Robert A. Siconolfi/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3616