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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US Patent 8,397,400 to Choo.
In Reference to Claim 1
Choo discloses a method of producing treated wood, comprising the steps of: providing one or more wood-based pieces (Col. 2, Line 39-40); inserting the one or more wood-based pieces into a kiln (Fig. 3, 30, a kiln); heating the one or more wood-based pieces to a set temperature under prescribed moisture conditions; maintaining the one or more wood-based pieces at the set temperature for a prescribed period of time (Abstract: provide and maintain a stable and sustained temperature environment within the chamber, humidification means to provide and maintain a predetermined equilibrium moisture content within the chamber); and cooling the one or more wood-based pieces to a set cooling temperature. (Col. 6, Line 28-30: the lumber stack are allowed to cool in an ambient temperature air stream)
In Reference to Claims 4-8
Cho discloses the set temperature for drying is not less than 120 degree and up to 200 degree.
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.
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 2, 3, 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choo in view of US Patent 8,468,715 to Thomas.
In Reference to Claims 2, 3, 11 and 12
Choo discloses a method of drying lumber.
Choo does not teach detail of the lumber.
Thomas teaches a method for drying wood product, the product is an engineered wood (Abstract) such as strand board (Col. 1, Line 16-17)
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art at the time when the invention was filed, to incorporate teachings from Thomas into the design of Choo. Doing so, would result in the engineered wood such as strand board being used in the drying process. The Office considers “engineered wood" as functional language. The use of the function language only requires that apparatus is capable of performing the function, and does not add any specific structural limitations to the apparatus. Since the Choo discloses the drying process for wood product, it must provide the drying function which is able to dry any kind of wood product. Furthermore, “apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does.”
Claims 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choo in view of US Patent 3,902,253 to Sabuzawa.
In Reference to Claims 9 and 10
Choo discloses the drying process for the lumber.
Choo does not teach the time of the drying process.
Sabuzawa teaches the lumber drying apparatus having a plurality of drying compartments. The retention time for each drying compartment was set upto 4 hours.
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art at the time when the invention was filed, to incorporate teachings from Sabuzawa into the design of Choo. Doing so, would result in the drying time in the drying compartment is set based on the material properties. Both inventions of Choo and Sabuzawa are in the same field of endeavor, Sabuzawa teaches that the retention time of drying process determined by the set temperature and the moisture content. The Office considers that the set time is merely an operation parameter.
Claims 1 and 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Publication 2010/0180987 to Park in view of Choo.
Park discloses a process to dry wood in the kiln to obtain a moisture content (Paragraph 27). The dry wood can be used for cabinet, floor, furniture, decorative objects (Paragraph 2)
Park does not teach the detail step of drying wood.
Choo teaches the drying step as taught in Claim 1.
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art at the time when the invention was filed, to incorporate teachings from Choo into the design of Park. Doing so, would result in the drying wood process of Choo being used to drying the wood used in the process of Park, since Choo provide an effective method of obtaining high quality dry lumber (Col. 2, Line 25-30).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DEMING WAN whose telephone number is (571)272-1410. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thur: 8 am to 6 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, Edelmira Bosques can be reached at 5712705614. 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.
DEMING . WAN
Examiner
Art Unit 3748
/DEMING WAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3762 10/19/25