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 Applicant’s election without traverse of Group II, claims 13-15 in the reply filed on 3/5/2026 is acknowledged. Claims 1-12 and 16 have been canceled by applicant as being drawn to a nonelected invention . Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 3/5/2026 . Specification The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: the specification failed to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed flow rate and temperature range in claim 15 and cart in claim 18. Claim Objections Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: claim 1, last paragraph, line 2, “ at least three courses” shall be changed to -- the at least three courses -- to show antecedent basis. Appropriate correction is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 C laims 14-15, 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. Claims 14-15 are method claims. Method claims shall be defined by active, positive steps. However, claims 14-15 fail to include active, positive steps. Claim 15 also recites abbreviation “F/M”. it is unclear what the recited “F/M” stands for. Claim 19 recites abbreviation “MC”. It is unclear what the recited “MC” stands for. 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. 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. Claim s 13-14, 18-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bachrich (US 4,014,107) in view of Smith (US 3,234,659) and Cooke et al. (US 2013/0092272) . Bachrich discloses a method for drying wood products 4 within a drying kiln 2, the method comprising: providing a drying kiln 2 comprising a ceiling member 24 supported by opposing continuous wall members 6 and at least one heat source 50 lateral thereof wherein stacked lumber 4 is to be received and dried within the kiln 2 (Fig. 1); providing stacked lumber 4 to be kilned within the kiln 2 , the stacked lumber 4 being under the ceiling member 24 (Fig. 1) and between the opposed continuous wall members 6 (Fig. 1) , wherein the stacked lumber 4 is arranged in courses (Fig. 1), with each course vertically spaced apart from one another from a top of the stacked lumber to a bottom of the stacked lumber (Fig. 1); providing at least one baffle 42 lateral of where the stacked lumber 4 is received (Fig. 1), the at least one baffle 42 extending vertically from the ceiling 24 between where the stacked lumber 4 is received and at least one of the opposing continuous wall members 6 to below the top of the stacked lumber 4 (Fig. 1) and exposing the heating source 50 to the stacked lumber below at least third course (Fig. 1, bottom outlet 66 of duct 50 is located below at least third course) ; drying the stacked lumber 4 within the kiln 2 while the at least one baffle 42 hangs along the opposing wall of the kiln to below the top of the stack of lumber 4 (Fig. 1). However, Bachrich does not disclose the baffle extends vertically from the ceiling to at least three courses below the top course of the stacked lumber. Bachrich also does not disclose the baffle is rubber baffle. Smith disclose s a lumber drying kiln 10 c omprising baffle 50 , 51 extends vertically from the ceiling 42 to at least three courses below the to p course of the stacked lumber S (Fig s . 1 -2 ). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to modify the drying method of Smith to extend the baffle vertically fr om the ceiling to at least three courses below the top course of the stacked lumber as taught by Smith in order to prevent escape of circulating air over the upper surfaces of the lumber stacks to insure complete the uniform circulation of the processing air through the lumber stacks and to further modify the lumber drying method of Bachrich to make the baffle from rub ber as taught by Cooke et al. in order to tolerance high moisture within the kiln. Regarding claim 14, Bachrich discloses there are at least a pair of baffles 42 baacketing the stack of lumber 4 (Fig.1. , Smith also discloses there are at least a pair of baffles 50 , 51 bracketing the stack of lumber S (Fig s . 1 -2 ). Regarding claim 18, Bachrich discloses providing the stacked lumber 4 to the kiln 2 upon a cart 16, 18, 20 (Fig. 1). Regarding claim 19, for examination purposes, the recited “MC” in claim 19 has been interpretated as moisture content. Smith discloses a lumber drying method comprising providing stacked lumber having less than 19% MC (col. 1, line 14 discloses a moisture content of 7%). Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to further modify the drying method of Bachrich to provide stacked lumber having less than 19% MC as taught by Smith in order to obtain a dryness condition that is ready for use by the industry. Regarding claim 20, Bachrich discloses separating each row of lumber 4 in the stack (Fig. 1 shows each lumber stacks 26, 28 are separated into three rows). Regarding claim 21, Bachrich as modified by Smith results in receiving the baffle between the first and third rows of the stacks. Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bachrich (US 4,014,107) in view of Smith (US 3,234,659) and Cooke et al. (US 2013/0092272) as applied to claim 13 as above, and further in view of Brodie et al. (US 2019/0234686 A1). Regarding claim 15, for examination purposes, the recited “F/M” in claim 15 has been interpreted as foot per minute . The drying method Bachrich as modified by Smith and Cooke et al. as above includes all that is recited in claim 15 except for the air flow is provided within the kiln at a flow of about 1200 F/M, and the kiln is maintained at a temperature of from about 80°F to about 240°F. Brodie et al. discloses a lumber drying method comprising providing an air flow within the kiln at a flow of about 1200 F/M (paragraph [0081] discloses an air flow rate of 1100-1200 fpm), and the kiln is maintained at a temperature of from about 80°F to about 240°F (paragraph [0079] discloses various temperature within the claimed range) . Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to further modify the drying method of Bachrich to include steps of providing the air flow within the kiln at a flow of about 1200 F/M, and maintaining the kiln at a temperature of from about 80°F to about 240°F as taught by Brodie et al. in order to improve drying efficiency. Claim 1 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bachrich (US 4,014,107) in view of Smith (US 3,234,659) and Cooke et al. (US 2013/0092272) as applied to claim 13 as above, and further in view of Choo et al. (WO 2011/149327 A1). The drying method of Bachrich as modified by Smith and Cooke et al. as above includes all that is recited in claim 17 except for supporting the baffle with a chain. Chool et al. discloses a lumber stack drying method comprising supporting baffle 36 with a chain 37 (Fig. 3 page 13, last paragraph). Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to further modify the drying method of Bachrich to include a step of supporting the baffle with a chain as taught by Choo et al. in order to facilitate control the pivot operation of the baffle. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Enter examiner's name" \* MERGEFORMAT JESSICA J YUEN whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-4878 . The examiner can normally be reached on FILLIN "Work schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Monday-Friday 9am-5pm . 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT MICHAEL G HOANG can be reached on FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (571) 272-6460 . The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000. FILLIN "Stamp?" \* MERGEFORMAT /Jessica Yuen/ Primary Examiner Art Unit 3762 JY