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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 1-6 are objected to because of the following informalities:
The claims are missing proper status identifiers and markup (see 37 CFR 1.121) and do not follow the proper numbering of claims throughout prosecution (see 37 CFR 1.126). In the interest of compact prosecution, Examiner notes the claims have been entered and examined herein but compliance with proper procedure is requested moving forward.
Appropriate correction is required.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
The paragraphs in the specification are not numbered. Paragraphs should be individually and consecutively numbered using Arabic numerals, so as to unambiguously identify each paragraph. The number should consist of at least four numerals enclosed in square brackets, including leading zeros (e.g., [0001]). The numbers and enclosing brackets should appear to the right of the left margin as the first item in each paragraph, before the first word of the paragraph, and should be highlighted in bold, see 37 CFR 1.52(b)(6).
Appropriate correction is required. The list of informalities cited is not necessarily exhaustive. Applicant should review the specification and correct any other potential errors.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding Claim 6 and the discussion of LED lights on Page 2 of the amended specification and the Abstract, the original specification lists epoxy generally as an acceptable filler. However, utilizing transparent epoxy and incorporating embedded lighting elements was not recited in the original disclosure.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-6 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1, Lines 3-4 and 7, recites “the final design”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation as “a final design” was not previously established. For examination purposes, the claim will be interpreted as if a final design was properly established.
Regarding Claim 3, the phrase "such as" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). For examination purposes, the limitations will be interpreted as not required.
Claims 2 and 4-6 are rejected by virtue of their dependency on Claim 1.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Engström (PGPub 2013/0241103).
Regarding Claim 1, Engström teaches a method of carving hollow core materials (Abstract; Figs. 1-4) comprising
carving recesses into a hollow core panel (Figs. 1b, 2b, 4a; [0034]) before applying skin material ([0033]- discussing the application of further layers that may be placed on the core side or the top side);
filling the recesses with an inlay material matching or complementing the final design (Figs. 1c, 2c, 4a; [0035]);
adhering skin material to both faces of the panel with an adhesive under pressure ([0033]- discussing the application of further layers that may be placed on the core side or the top side); and
trimming and carving the final design into the panel (Fig. 1d-1e, 2c-2e, 4b; [0036]), achieving a solid wood appearance while retaining the structural benefits of a hollow core (Abstract).
Regarding Claim 2, Engström teaches a substrate with one skin layer (See Figs.) and also teaches the application of further layers on the core side or the top side [0033]. Examiner notes the instant limitation of “if both sides have skin, the top skin and core are selectively removed while leaving the bottom skin intact for structural support before filling with a solid material” is recited as a conditional limitation. Thus, the recitation of “the top skin and core are selectively removed while leaving the bottom skin intact for structural support before filling with a solid material” is only required “if both sides have skin”. Since Engström teaches a substrate with one skin layer (See Figs.), leaving a bottom skin intact is not required as the condition of the substrate having skin on both sides is not met thus meeting the instant limitation.
Regarding Claim 3, Engström further teaches a completed hollow core panel is carved to expose the core material (Fig. 1d-1e, 2c-2e, 4b; [0036]), and the exposed carvings are filled with filler (Figs. 1c, 2c, 4a; [0035]), ensuring at least one skin remains intact (See Figs.).
Regarding Claim 4, Engström further teaches adhering additional layers of skin material to the surface of the panel creating a raised design [0033].
Regarding Claim 5, Engström further teaches combining carved and raised designs to achieve intricate panel patterns [0033]; [0036].
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 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Engström (PGPub 2013/0241103) in view of “How To Put Lights In Your Epoxy Resin Projects?” (Craft Resin; published October 19, 2021).
Regarding Claim 6, Engström teaches utilizing filler to fill carved spaces (Figs. 1c, 2c, 4a; [0035]) and the filler material should be flowable and later solidified [0010] but does not specify transparent epoxy is used to fill carved spaces, incorporating embedded lighting elements to create illuminated decorative panels.
Craft Resin teaches an alternative method of forming composite with epoxy (See Images) wherein transparent epoxy is used with embedded LED lights (See Images) in order to create an illuminated composite (Page 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Engström to include transparent epoxy with embedded LEDs as taught by Craft Resin with reasonable expectation of success to create an illuminated composite (Pages 2-3).
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 Adrianna Konves whose telephone number is (571)272-3958. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00-4:00 MST (Arizona).
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, Abbas Rashid can be reached on (571) 270-7457. 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.
/A.K./Examiner, Art Unit 1748 11/14/25
/Abbas Rashid/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1748