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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Applicant's submission filed on January 12, 2026 was received and has been entered. Claims 1-6, 8, 11, 13-14, 16-17, and 19 were amended. Claim 10 was cancelled. Claims 23-24 were added. Claims 1-9, 11, 13-18, and 23-24 are in the application. Claims 18-22 have been withdrawn. Replacement Figures 1A-1C, 2-4, and 12-15 were submitted to address an objection to the Drawings. Replacement Specification was submitted to correct minor typographical errors. A replacement paragraph was submitted to amend the title.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Drawings
The previous objection to the drawings concerning color photographs and color drawings in utility applications is withdrawn based on the amendment to the drawings.
Figure 15 is objected to based on the inclusion of reference numerals not provided in the original Figure 15.
Specification
The previous objection to the title of the invention for not being descriptive is withdrawn based on the submission of a replacement Title.
The specification should be reviewed for proper idiomatic English and in compliance with 37 CFR 1.52(a) and (b).
Consider amending the spec (paragraphs 19-25, etc) to replace the phrase “repairing device” with the phrase “repair device”
Throughout the specification “scrapper” should be “scraper”
Reference numeral 70 is used to identify knife, blade, scrapper. Clarification is requested.
Remove the word “sidewards” from paragraph 10
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: “spreader configured to spread a layer of the pressurized filler on the top surface of the wood board and to fill the defects of the top surface with the filler while the wood board is moved” in claim 1, “board displacement assembly” in claims 5-6; “adjustment assembly” in claims 11, 13; “height adjustment assembly” in claim 14; “pressure adjustment assembly” in claim 16; “As shown at FIG. 1B, the second actuator 88 has a greater volume and applies a superior pressure than the first actuator 86 which has a lower volume” in paragraph 73; and “the first actuator 86 is configured to press the filler applicator over the top surface of the board while second actuator 88 is configured to press the scrapper over the top surface of the board” in paragraph 74.
Remove the last line of paragraph 73
Referring back to FIGS. 1B and 1C, an exemplary pressuring mechanism 80 is illustrated. The pressuring mechanism 80 generally applies a constant pressure over the head 40 to maintain the said head 40 in contact with the top surface 3 of the processed plank 2. The pressuring mechanism 80 generally comprises a support frame 82, a first actuator 86 and a second actuator 88. The pressuring mechanism may also comprise a servomotor. The support frame 82 may comprise a support 83 for receiving the second actuator 88 and a pressure plate 84 adapted to apply vertical pressure on a top portion of the head 40.
[0074] In the illustrated embodiment, the support frame 82 is pivotally attached to the frame of the device 100. As such, when the second actuator 88 is extending, the support
frame is pushed against the top portion of the head 40. The pressure plate 84 may be embodied as one or more finger pressing on the top portion of the head 40. In the illustrated embodiment, the support 83 comprises a pin attaching a bottom portion of the first actuator 86 to the support frame 82. The servomotor is controlling the actuator 86. Typically, the second actuator 88 is pushing on the head 40 during operations of the device 100.
Claim Interpretation
This application includes one or more claim limitations that are no longer being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitations using a generic placeholder coupled with functional language have been deleted from these claims. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “conveying system” in claim 1, “leveling system” in claim 2, “displacement system” in claims 5-6, “width adjustment system” in claim 11, “height adjustment system” in claim 13, and “ pressure application system” in claims 16-17.
Claim Objections
The previous objection to claim 8 because of the following informalities:
“sidewards” is withdrawn based on the amendment to claim 8.
Claim 1 recites : “wood boards” in line 2 of claim 1, and “wood board” in other locations. A suggestion revision is to recite “wood boards” or “wood board” for consistency.
Claims 3-4 recites the term “ the leveling board stabilizer”. For the purpose of prosecution based on paragraph 57, Examiner is interpreting the phrase as “ the board stabilizer”.
Claim 14 recites the term “ the wheels being treaded”. For the purpose of prosecution, Examiner is interpreting the phrase as “ wheels being treaded “.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The previous rejection of claims 1-2, 4, and 15 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat. Pub. No. 20040200546 A1 to Cable (hereinafter Cable) in view of US Pat. Num. 4,545,845 to Biewald (hereinafter Biewald) and US Pat. Num. 6,033,503 to Radowicz et al ( hereinafter Radowicz) is withdrawn based on the amendment to claim 1.
Claims 1 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat. Num. 2,335,528 A1 to G. F. Neils (hereinafter Neils) in view of US Pat. Num. 6,033,503 to Radowicz et al ( hereinafter Radowicz).
Regarding claim 1, Neils teaches a system for repairing defects on a top surface of wood boards in a continuous wood board production line, comprising: a filler applicator (3) to be pressed against the top surface of a wood board being longitudinally moved under the filler applicator, the filler applicator being in fluid communication with a source of pressurized filler (14) to create a sealed chamber between the top surface of the wood board (41) and a bottom portion (10) of the pressed filler applicator,
the filler applicator comprising:
an opening (end of 12) configured to apply the pressurized filler over the top of the wood boards,
and a conveyor (rollers 2) to move the wood board (41) toward and away from the filler applicator (3). (See Neils, Abstract, page 1, col. 2, lines 42-52; page 2, col. 1, lines 14-57; page 3, col. 1, lines 36-69, and Figs. 1-2.)
Regarding claim 1, Neils does not explicitly teach a spreader configured to spread a layer of the pressurized filler on the top surface of the wood board and to fill defects of the top surface with the filler while the wood board is moved;
Radowicz is directed to machine for assembling wood strips.
Radowicz teaches a filler applicator ( roller 718, 218) to be pressed against a top surface of a wood board being conveyed. (See Radowicz, Abstract, col. 5, lines 47-65; col. 13, lines 52-67.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to include a spreader configured to spread a layer of the pressurized filler on the top surface of the wood board and to fill defects of the top surface with the filler while the wood board is moved, because Radowicz teaches this structure spreads adhesive to a conveyed structure. (See Radowicz, Abstract, col. 5, lines 47-65; col. 13, lines 52-67.)
Regarding claim 15, Neils does not explicitly teach a second filler applicator having a different width than the first filler applicator.
Radowicz teaches a second filler applicator ( roller 718, 218) can be used to coating first end of the work piece with adhesive. (See Radowicz, Abstract, col. 5, lines 47-65; col. 13, lines 52-67.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to substitute a second filler applicator having a different width than the first filler applicator, through routine experimentation, with a reasonable expectation of success, to the select the proper width for the coating of the first part of the workpiece, as a result-effective variable, in order to provide the optimal efficiency for coating properties. (See Radowicz, Abstract, col. 5, lines 47-65; col. 13, lines 52-67.)
Claims 2 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat. Num. 2,335,528 A1 to G. F. Neils (hereinafter Neils) in view of US Pat. Num. 6,033,503 to Radowicz et al ( hereinafter Radowicz) as applied to claim 1 and further in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20040200546 A1 to Cable (hereinafter Cable) .
Regarding claim 2, Neils does not explicitly teach a board stabilizer to maintain the processed wood board leveled with the bottom portion of the filler applicator.
Cable is directed to the continued production of glued pieces of lumber.
Cable teaches a board stabilizer ( 18, 18b; 80, 84) to maintain the processed wood board leveled with the bottom portion of the filler applicator. (See Cable, Abstract, paragraphs 5, 57, 62, and Figs. 1-4a.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to include a board stabilizer to maintain the processed wood board leveled with the bottom portion of the filler applicator, because Cable teaches this structure allows the substrate to be held in place with sufficient holding force. (See Cable, Abstract, paragraphs 5, 57, 62, and Figs. 1-4a.)
Regarding claim 4, Neils does not explicitly teach the leveling board stabilizer comprising a slider to maintain the top surface of the board leveled with the bottom portion of the filler applicator.
Cable teaches comprising a slider (18a-b) to maintain the top surface of the board leveled with the bottom portion of the filler applicator. (See Cable, Abstract, paragraphs 5, 57, 62, and Figs. 1-4a.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to include the leveling board stabilizer comprising a slider to maintain the top surface of the board leveled with the bottom portion of the filler applicator, because Cable teaches this structure allows the substrate to be held in place with sufficient holding force. (See Cable, Abstract, paragraphs 5, 57, 62, and Figs. 1-4a.)
The previous rejection of claims 3 and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat. Pub. No. 20040200546 A1 to Cable (hereinafter Cable) in view of US Pat. Num. 6,033,503 to Radowicz et al ( hereinafter Radowicz) and US Pat. Num. 4,545,845 to Biewald (hereinafter Biewald) as claimed in claim 2 and further in view of US Pat. Num. 3,748,578 to Donald Ward ( hereinafter Ward) is withdrawn based on the amendment to claim 1.
Claims 3 and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat. Num. 2,335,528 A1 to G. F. Neils (hereinafter Neils) in view of US Pat. Num. 6,033,503 to Radowicz et al ( hereinafter Radowicz) as claimed in claim 2 and further in view of US Pat. Num. 3,748,578 to Donald Ward ( hereinafter Ward).
Regarding claim 3, Neils does not explicitly teach the leveling board stabilizer comprising a top roller rotatable over the top surface of the board.
Ward is direct to conveying wood articles.
Ward teaches the leveling board stabilizer comprising a top roller (36) rotatable over the top surface of the board. (See Ward, Abstract, col. 4, lines 40-62 and Figs. 1-4.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to include the leveling board stabilizer comprising a top roller rotatable over the top surface of the board, because Ward teaches this structure allows the conveyed article to be properly guided without adding overall length to the production line. (See Ward, Abstract, col. 4, lines 40-62 and Figs. 1-4.)
Regarding claim 13, Neils does not explicitly teach the conveyor comprising a board height adjustment assembly.
Ward teaches the conveying system comprising a height adjustment system (36).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have the conveyor comprising a board height adjustment assembly, because Ward teaches this structure allows the conveyed article to be properly guided. (See Ward, Abstract, col. 4, lines 40-62 and Figs. 1-4.)
Regarding claim 14, Neils does not explicitly teach the height adjustment assembly having the wheels being treaded and attached to a base surface, the wheels being configured to change in height when screwed or unscrewed
Ward teaches the height adjustment system having the wheels being treaded and attached to a base surface (brackets 40), the wheels being configured to change in height when screwed or unscrewed. (See Ward, Abstract, col. 4, lines 40-62 and Figs. 1-4.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to include the height adjustment system having the wheels being treaded and attached to a base surface, the wheels being configured to change in height when screwed or unscrewed, because Ward teaches this structure allows the conveyed article to be properly guided. (See Ward, Abstract, col. 4, lines 40-62 and Figs. 1-4.)
The previous rejection of claims 5-10 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat. Pub. No. 20040200546 A1 to Cable (hereinafter Cable) in view of US Pat. Num. 6,033,503 to Radowicz et al ( hereinafter Radowicz) and US Pat. Num. 4,545,845 to Biewald (hereinafter Biewald) as claimed in claim 2 and further in view of US Pat. Num. 3,927,705 to Cromeens et al ( hereinafter Cromeens) is withdrawn based on the amendment to claim 1 and cancellation of claim 10.
Claims 5-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat. Num. 2,335,528 A1 to G. F. Neils (hereinafter Neils) in view of US Pat. Num. 6,033,503 to Radowicz et al ( hereinafter Radowicz) as claimed in claim 1 and further in view of US Pat. Num. 3,927,705 to Cromeens et al ( hereinafter Cromeens).
Regarding claim 5, Niels does not explicitly teach the conveying system comprising a board displacement system limiting gaps between extremities of wood boards fed to the filler applicator.
Cromeens is direct to conveying wood articles.
Cromeens teaches the conveying system comprising a board displacement system (13) limiting gaps between extremities of wood boards fed to the filler applicator. (See Cromeens, Abstract, col. 4, lines 35-55; col. 15, lines 7 to col. 16, line 55 and Figs. 1, 21-24.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to include the conveying system comprising a board displacement system limiting gaps between extremities of wood boards fed to the filler applicator, because Ward teaches this structure allows the conveyed article to be properly guided without adding overall length to the production line. (See Cromeens, Abstract, col. 4, lines 35-55; col. 15, lines 7 to col. 16, line 55 and Figs. 1, 21-24.)
Regarding claim 6, Niels does not explicitly teach at least two pairs of laterally opposing wheels adapted to contact sidewalls of the wood boards to be processed, the upstream pair of wheels being configured to drive a first wood board toward a second wood board immobilized by the downstream pair of wheels.
Cromeens teaches at least two pairs (199, 200 and 197, 198) of laterally opposing wheels adapted to contact sidewalls of the wood boards (sticks or timbers) to be processed, the upstream pair of wheels being configured to drive a first wood board toward a second wood board (end-to-end) immobilized by the downstream pair of wheels. (See Cromeens, Abstract, col. 4, lines 35-55; col. 16, lines 20-25; col. 15, lines 7 to col. 16, line 55 and Figs. 1, 21-24.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to include at least two pairs of laterally opposing wheels adapted to contact sidewalls of the wood boards to be processed, the upstream pair of wheels being configured to drive a first wood board toward a second wood board immobilized by the downstream pair of wheels, because Cromeens teaches this structure allows anterior or front ends to be joined together in an end-to-end relationship. (See Cromeens, Abstract, col. 4, lines 35-55; col. 14, lines 16-50; col. 15, lines 7 to col. 16, line 55 and Figs. 1, 21-24.)
Regarding claim 7, Niels does not explicitly teach one of each of the at least two pairs of laterally opposing wheels comprising a drive wheel.
Cromeens teaches one of each of the at least two pairs of laterally opposing wheels comprising a drive wheel. (See Cromeens, Abstract, col. 4, lines 35-55; col. 15, lines 32 to col. 16, line 55 and Figs. 1, 21-24.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to include one of each of the at least two pairs of laterally opposing wheels comprising a drive wheel, because Cromeens teaches this structure positively grips the sticks or timbers and permits variation of the space between adjacent timbers. (See Cromeens, Abstract, col. 4, lines 35-55; col. 15, lines 7 to col. 16, line 55 and Figs. 1, 21-24.)
Regarding claim 8, Niels does not explicitly teach the wheels comprising a friction surface in contact with sidewards of the wood boards.
Cromeens teaches the wheels comprising a friction surface (surface which positively grips) in contact with sidewards of the wood boards. (See Cromeens, Abstract, col. 16, lines 20-25 and Figs. 1 -24.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to include the wheels comprising a friction surface in contact with sidewards of the wood boards, because Cromeens teaches this structure positively grips the sticks or timbers and permits variation of the space between adjacent timbers. (See Cromeens, Abstract, col. 4, lines 35-55; col. 15, lines 7 to col. 16, line 55 and Figs. 1, 21-24.)
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat. Num. 2,335,528 A1 to G. F. Neils (hereinafter Neils) in view of US Pat. Num. 6,033,503 to Radowicz et al ( hereinafter Radowicz) and US Pat. Num. 3,927,705 to Cromeens et al ( hereinafter Cromeens) as claimed in claim 8 and further in view of US Pat. Num. 20060070571 A1 to Martin Garcia ( hereinafter Garcia).
Regarding claim 9, Niels does not explicitly teach the friction surface being a gripping surface.
Cromeens teaches the friction surface being a gripping surface(surface which positively grips). (See Cromeens, Abstract, col. 16, lines 20-25 and Figs. 1 -24.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to include the friction surface being a gripping surface, because Cromeens teaches this structure positively grips the sticks or timbers and permits variation of the space between adjacent timbers. (See Cromeens, Abstract, col. 4, lines 35-55; col. 15, lines 7 to col. 16, line 55 and Figs. 1, 21-24.)
Additionally, regarding claim 9, Niels does not explicitly teach the gripping surface comprising a plurality of screw heads.
Garcia teaches a screw is known way for using friction engagement into a member. (See Garcia, Abstract, paragraph 37, and Fig. 3.)
The selection of something based on its known suitability for its intended use has been held to support a prima facie case of obviousness. Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. lnterchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945). See MPEP 2144.07. Therefore, taking the references as a whole, it would have been obvious to have the gripping surface comprising a plurality of screw heads with a reasonableexpectation of success, because a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize this as suitable for use with a surface which positively grips. (See Garcia, Abstract, paragraph 37, and Fig. 3.)
The previous rejection of claims 11-12 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat. Pub. No. 20040200546 A1 to Cable (hereinafter Cable) in view of US Pat. Num. 6,033,503 to Radowicz et al ( hereinafter Radowicz) and US Pat. Num. 4,545,845 to Biewald (hereinafter Biewald) as applied to claim 1 and further in view of US Pat. Num. 3,894,908 to Troutner et al ( hereinafter Troutner). is withdrawn based on the amendment to claim 1 and cancellation of claim 10 is withdrawn based on the amendment to claim 1 and the cancellation of claim 12.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat. Num. 2,335,528 A1 to G. F. Neils (hereinafter Neils) in view of US Pat. Num. 6,033,503 to Radowicz et al ( hereinafter Radowicz) as applied to claim 1 and further in view of US Pat. Num. 3,894,908 to Troutner et al ( hereinafter Troutner).
Regarding claim 11, Niels does not explicitly teach the conveying system comprising a width adjustment system.
Troutner is direct to conveying wood articles.
Troutner teaches the conveying system comprising a width adjustment system (movable walls such as element 20) . (See Troutner, Abstract, col. 2, lines 17-25; col. 4, lines 8 -16; col. 6, lines 52- col. 7, line 7; col. 8, lines 15-30; col. 10, lines 9-22; and Figs. 1-22.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to include the conveying system comprising a width adjustment system, because Troutner teaches this structure allows substrates of different dimensions to be accomodated. (See Troutner, Abstract, col. 2, lines 17-25; col. 4, lines 8 -16; col. 6, lines 52- col. 7, line 7; col. 8, lines 15-30; col. 10, lines 9-22; and Figs. 1-22.)
Additionally regarding claim 11, Niels does not explicitly teach the width adjustment assembly comprising a side portion comprising a side wall laterally movable toward a fixed portion comprising a side wall.
Troutner teaches the width adjustment system comprising a side portion comprising a side wall (companion frame member 20) laterally movable toward a fixed portion comprising a side wall (20 which is fixed to leg 18). (See Troutner, Abstract, col. 2, lines 17-25; col. 4, lines 8 -16; col. 6, lines 52- col. 7, line 7; col. 8, lines 15-30; col. 10, lines 9-22; and Figs. 1-22.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to include the conveying system comprising a width adjustment system, because Troutner teaches this structure allows substrates of different dimensions to be accommodated. (See Troutner, Abstract, col. 2, lines 17-25; col. 4, lines 8 -16; col. 6, lines 52- col. 7, line 7; col. 8, lines 15-30; col. 10, lines 9-22; and Figs. 1-22.)
The previous rejection of claims 16-17 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat. Pub. No. 20040200546 A1 to Cable (hereinafter Cable) in view of US Pat. Num. 6,033,503 to Radowicz et al ( hereinafter Radowicz) and US Pat. Num. 4,545,845 to Biewald (hereinafter Biewald) as applied to claim 1 and further in view of US Pat. Num. 5,296,257 to Knop et al ( hereinafter Knop) is withdrawn based on the amendment to claim 1.
Claims 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat. Num. 2,335,528 A1 to G. F. Neils (hereinafter Neils) in view of US Pat. Num. 6,033,503 to Radowicz et al ( hereinafter Radowicz) as applied to claim 1 and further in view of US Pat. Num. 5,296,257 to Knop et al ( hereinafter Knop).
Regarding claim 16, Niels does not explicitly teach a pressure application system adapted to apply pressure on the filler applicator against the top surface of the wood board.
Knop teaches a pressure application system adapted to apply pressure on the filler applicator against the top surface of the wood board. (See Knop, Abstract, col. 2, lines 3-14, col. 4, lines 56-66, col. 6, lines 65- col. 7, line 25.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to substitute a pressure application system adapted to apply pressure on the filler applicator against the top surface of the wood board, through routine experimentation, with a reasonable expectation of success, to the select the proper pressure for the coating of the first part of the workpiece, as a result-effective variable, in order to provide the optimal weight of material per unit area for the coating . (See Knop, Abstract, col. 2, lines 3-14, col. 4, lines 56-66, col. 6, lines 65- col. 7, line 25.)
Regarding claim 17, Niels does not explicitly teach a cylinder at each corner of a top portion of the filler applicator to apply a constant pressure over the top surface of the wood board.
Knop teaches a pressure application system adapted to apply pressure on the filler applicator against the top surface of the wood board. (See Knop, Abstract, col. 2, lines 3-14, col. 4, lines 56-66, col. 6, lines 65- col. 7, line 25.)
The selection of something based on its known suitability for its intended use has been held to support a prima facie case of obviousness. Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. lnterchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945). See MPEP 2144.07. Therefore, taking the references as a whole, it would have been obvious to have a cylinder at each corner of a top portion of the filler applicator to apply a constant pressure over the top surface of the wood board with a reasonable expectation of success, because a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize this as suitable way to apply pressure to a roller. (See Knop, Abstract, col. 2, lines 3-14, col. 4, lines 56-66, col. 6, lines 65- col. 7, line 25.)
The previous rejection of claim 18 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat. Pub. No. 20040200546 A1 to Cable (hereinafter Cable) in view of US Pat. Num. 6,033,503 to Radowicz et al ( hereinafter Radowicz) and US Pat. Num. 4,545,845 to Biewald (hereinafter Biewald) as applied to claim 1 and further in view of US Pat. Num. 6,189,682 to David Hill ( hereinafter Hill) is withdrawn based on the amendment to claim 1.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat. Num. 2,335,528 A1 to G. F. Neils (hereinafter Neils) in view of US Pat. Num. 6,033,503 to Radowicz et al ( hereinafter Radowicz) as applied to claim 1 and further in view of US Pat. Num. 6,189,682 to David Hill ( hereinafter Hill).
Regarding claim 18, Niels does not explicitly teach a plurality of sensors connected to a controller for detecting presence of wood board, the controller being configure to feed the wood board based on signals of the sensors.
Hill is direct to conveying wood articles.
Hill teaches a plurality of sensors (660, 665) connected to a controller for detecting presence of wood board, the controller being configure to feed the wood board based on signals of the sensors. (See Hill, Abstract, col. 11, lines 25-39.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to include a plurality of sensors connected to a controller for detecting presence of wood board, the controller being configure to feed the wood board based on signals of the sensors, because Hill teaches this structure allows feed rate to be adjusted. (See Hill, Abstract, col. 11, lines 25-39.)
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat. Num. 2,335,528 A1 to G. F. Neils (hereinafter Neils) in view of US Pat. Num. 6,033,503 to Radowicz et al ( hereinafter Radowicz) as applied to claim 1 and further in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20100206221 A1 to Branca et al ( hereinafter Branca).
Regarding claim 23, Niels does not explicitly teach an actuator configured to press the scrapper over the top surface of the board.
Branca is directed to applying an adhesive to a substrate.
Branco teaches an actuator (350) configured to press the scrapper (300) over the top surface of the board. (See Branca, Abstract, paragraph 166.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to include an actuator configured to press the scrapper over the top surface of the board, because Branca teaches this structure allows the adhesive to be spread out on the substrate. (See Branca, Abstract, paragraph 166.)
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat. Num. 2,335,528 A1 to G. F. Neils (hereinafter Neils) in view of US Pat. Num. 6,033,503 to Radowicz et al ( hereinafter Radowicz) as applied to claim 1 and further in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20160052249 A1 to Saito et al ( hereinafter Saito).
Regarding claim 24, Niels does not explicitly teach spreader being a scrapper configured to remove excess of filler applied on the top surface of board
Saito is directed to applying an adhesive to a substrate.
Saito teaches the spreader being a scrapper (41) configured to remove excess of filler applied on the top surface of an outer peripheral surface. (See Saito, Abstract, paragraph 60.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to include the spreader being a scrapper configured to remove excess of filler applied on the top surface of board, because Saito teaches this structure allows the adhesive to be removed from an outer surface. (See Saito, Abstract, paragraph 60.)
Claims 1 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat. Num. 5,115,844 A1 to Torben Hansen (hereinafter Hansen) in view of US Pat. Num. 6,033,503 to Radowicz et al ( hereinafter Radowicz) and US Pat. Num. 2,335,528 A1 to G. F. Niels (hereinafter Niels).
Regarding claim 1, Hansen teaches a system for repairing defects on a top surface (22) of wood boards in a continuous wood board production line, comprising: a filler applicator (10) to be pressed against the top surface of a wood board being longitudinally moved under the filler applicator, the filler applicator being in fluid communication with a source of pressurized filler (14) to create a sealed chamber between the top surface of the wood board (41) and a bottom portion (10) of the pressed filler applicator,
the filler applicator comprising:
and an opening (end of 19) configured to apply the pressurized filler over the top of the wood boards. (See Hansen, Abstract, Figs. 1-5, and col. 2, lines 33-65, col. 4, lines 9-35, 48-68; col. 5, lines 30-50, col. 6, lines 45-65, and col. 7, lines 29-57.)
Regarding claim 1, Hansen does not explicitly teach a spreader configured to spread a layer of the pressurized filler on the top surface of the wood board and to fill defects of the top surface with the filler while the wood board is moved;
Radowicz is directed to machine for assembling wood strips.
Radowicz teaches a filler applicator ( roller 718, 218) to be pressed against a top surface of a wood board being conveyed. (See Radowicz, Abstract, col. 5, lines 47-65; col. 13, lines 52-67.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to include a spreader configured to spread a layer of the pressurized filler on the top surface of the wood board and to fill defects of the top surface with the filler while the wood board is moved, because Radowicz teaches this structure spreads adhesive to a conveyed structure. (See Radowicz, Abstract, col. 5, lines 47-65; col. 13, lines 52-67.)
Regarding claim 1, Hansen does not explicitly teach a conveyor to move the wood board toward and away from the filler applicator.
Niels is directed to machine for applying adhesive to top of a wood surface.
Niels teaches a conveyor (rollers 2) to move the wood board (41) toward and away from the filler applicator (3). (See Niels, Abstract, page 1, col. 2, lines 42-52; page 2, col. 1, lines 14-57; page 3, col. 1, lines 36-69, and Figs. 1-2.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to include a conveyor to move the wood board toward and away from the filler applicator, because Niels teaches this structure spreads adhesive to a conveyed structure. (See Niels, Abstract, page 1, col. 2, lines 42-52; page 2, col. 1, lines 14-57; page 3, col. 1, lines 36-69, and Figs. 1-2.)
Regarding claim 15, Hansen does not explicitly teach a second filler applicator having a different width than the first filler applicator.
Radowicz teaches a second filler applicator ( roller 718, 218) can be used to coating first end of the work piece with adhesive. (See Radowicz, Abstract, col. 5, lines 47-65; col. 13, lines 52-67.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to substitute a second filler applicator having a different width than the first filler applicator, through routine experimentation, with a reasonable expectation of success, to the select the proper width for the coating of the first part of the workpiece, as a result-effective variable, in order to provide the optimal efficiency for coating properties. (See Radowicz, Abstract, col. 5, lines 47-65; col. 13, lines 52-67.)
Claims 2 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat. Num. 5,115,844 to Hansen (hereinafter Hansen) in view of US Pat. Num. 6,033,503 to Radowicz et al ( hereinafter Radowicz) and US Pat. Num. 2,335,528 A1 to G. F. Niels (hereinafter Niels) as applied to claim 1 and further in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20040200546 A1 to Cable (hereinafter Cable) .
Regarding claim 2, Hansen does not explicitly teach a board stabilizer to maintain the processed wood board leveled with the bottom portion of the filler applicator.
Cable is directed to the continued production of glued pieces of lumber.
Cable teaches a board stabilizer ( 18, 18b; 80, 84) to maintain the processed wood board leveled with the bottom portion of the filler applicator. (See Cable, Abstract, paragraphs 5, 57, 62, and Figs. 1-4a.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to include a board stabilizer to maintain the processed wood board leveled with the bottom portion of the filler applicator, because Cable teaches this structure allows the substrate to be held in place with sufficient holding force. (See Cable, Abstract, paragraphs 5, 57, 62, and Figs. 1-4a.)
Regarding claim 4, Hansen does not explicitly teach the leveling board stabilizer comprising a slider to maintain the top surface of the board leveled with the bottom portion of the filler applicator.
Cable teaches comprising a slider (18a-b) to maintain the top surface of the board leveled with the bottom portion of the filler applicator. (See Cable, Abstract, paragraphs 5, 57, 62, and Figs. 1-4a.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to include the leveling board stabilizer comprising a slider to maintain the top surface of the board leveled with the bottom portion of the filler applicator, because Cable teaches this structure allows the substrate to be held in place with sufficient holding force. (See Cable, Abstract, paragraphs 5, 57, 62, and Figs. 1-4a.)
Claims 3 and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat. Num. 5,115,844 to Hansen (hereinafter Hansen) in view of US Pat. Num. 6,033,503 to Radowicz et al ( hereinafter Radowicz) and US Pat. Num. 2,335,528 A1 to G. F. Niels (hereinafter Niels) as claimed in claim 2 and further in view of US Pat. Num. 3,748,578 to Donald Ward ( hereinafter Ward).
Regarding claim 3, Hansen does not explicitly teach the leveling board stabilizer comprising a top roller rotatable over the top surface of the board.
Ward is direct to conveying wood articles.
Ward teaches the leveling board stabilizer comprising a top roller (36) rotatable over the top surface of the board. (See Ward, Abstract, col. 4, lines 40-62 and Figs. 1-4.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to include the leveling board stabilizer comprising a top roller rotatable over the top surface of the board, because Ward teaches this structure allows the conveyed article to be properly guided without adding overall length to the production line. (See Ward, Abstract, col. 4, lines 40-62 and Figs. 1-4.)
Regarding claim 13, Hansen does not explicitly teach the conveyor comprising a board height adjustment assembly.
Ward teaches the conveying system comprising a height adjustment system (36).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have the conveyor comprising a board height adjustment assembly, because Ward teaches this structure allows the conveyed article to be properly guided. (See Ward, Abstract, col. 4, lines 40-62 and Figs. 1-4.)
Regarding claim 14, Hansen does not explicitly teach the height adjustment assembly having the wheels being treaded and attached to a base surface, the wheels being configured to change in height when screwed or unscrewed
Ward teaches the height adjustment system having the wheels being treaded and attached to a base surface (brackets 40), the wheels being configured to change in height when screwed or unscrewed. (See Ward, Abstract, col. 4, lines 40-62 and Figs. 1-4.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to include the height adjustment system having the wheels being treaded and attached to a base surface, the wheels being configured to change in height when screwed or unscrewed, because Ward teaches this structure allows the conveyed article to be properly guided. (See Ward, Abstract, col. 4, lines 40-62 and Figs. 1-4.)
Claims 5-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat. Num. 5,115,844 to Hansen (hereinafter Hansen) in view of US Pat. Num. 6,033,503 to Radowicz et al ( hereinafter Radowicz) and US Pat. Num. 2,335,528 A1 to G. F. Niels (hereinafter Niels) as claimed in claim 1 and further in view of US Pat. Num. 3,927,705 to Cromeens et al ( hereinafter Cromeens).
Regarding claim 5, Hansen does not explicitly teach the conveying system comprising a board displacement system limiting gaps between extremities of wood boards fed to the filler applicator.
Cromeens is direct to conveying wood articles.
Cromeens teaches the conveying system comprising a board displacement system (13) limiting gaps between extremities of wood boards fed to the filler applicator. (See Cromeens, Abstract, col. 4, lines 35-55; col. 15, lines 7 to col. 16, line 55 and Figs. 1, 21-24.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to include the conveying system comprising a board displacement system limiting gaps between extremities of wood boards fed to the filler applicator, because Ward teaches this structure allows the conveyed article to be properly guided without adding overall length to the production line. (See Cromeens, Abstract, col. 4, lines 35-55; col. 15, lines 7 to col. 16, line 55 and Figs. 1, 21-24.)
Regarding claim 6, Hansen does not explicitly teach at least two pairs of laterally opposing wheels adapted to contact sidewalls of the wood boards to be processed, the upstream pair of wheels being configured to drive a first wood board toward a second wood board immobilized by the downstream pair of wheels.
Cromeens teaches at least two pairs (199, 200 and 197, 198) of laterally opposing wheels adapted to contact sidewalls of the wood boards (sticks or timbers) to be processed, the upstream pair of wheels being configured to drive a first wood board toward a second wood board (end-to-end) immobilized by the downstream pair of wheels. (See Cromeens, Abstract, col. 4, lines 35-55; col. 16, lines 20-25; col. 15, lines 7 to col. 16, line 55 and Figs. 1, 21-24.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to include at least two pairs of laterally opposing wheels adapted to contact sidewalls of the wood boards to be processed, the upstream pair of wheels being configured to drive a first wood board toward a second wood board immobilized by the downstream pair of wheels, because Cromeens teaches this structure allows anterior or front ends to be joined together in an end-to-end relationship. (See Cromeens, Abstract, col. 4, lines 35-55; col. 14, lines 16-50; col. 15, lines 7 to col. 16, line 55 and Figs. 1, 21-24.)
Regarding claim 7, Hansen does not explicitly teach one of each of the at least two pairs of laterally opposing wheels comprising a drive wheel.
Cromeens teaches one of each of the at least two pairs of laterally opposing wheels comprising a drive wheel. (See Cromeens, Abstract, col. 4, lines 35-55; col. 15, lines 32 to col. 16, line 55 and Figs. 1, 21-24.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to include one of each of the at least two pairs of laterally opposing wheels comprising a drive wheel, because Cromeens teaches this structure positively grips the sticks or timbers and permits variation of the space between adjacent timbers. (See Cromeens, Abstract, col. 4, lines 35-55; col. 15, lines 7 to col. 16, line 55 and Figs. 1, 21-24.)
Regarding claim 8, Hansen does not explicitly teach the wheels comprising a friction surface in contact with sidewards of the wood boards.
Cromeens teaches the wheels comprising a friction surface (surface which positively grips) in contact with sidewards of the wood boards. (See Cromeens, Abstract, col. 16, lines 20-25 and Figs. 1 -24.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to include the wheels comprising a friction surface in contact with sidewards of the wood boards, because Cromeens teaches this structure positively grips the sticks or timbers and permits variation of the space between adjacent timbers. (See Cromeens, Abstract, col. 4, lines 35-55; col. 15, lines 7 to col. 16, line 55 and Figs. 1, 21-24.)
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat. Num. 5,115,844 to Hansen (hereinafter Hansen) in view of US Pat. Num. 6,033,503 to Radowicz et al ( hereinafter Radowicz) and US Pat. Num. 2,335,528 A1 to G. F. Niels (hereinafter Niels) and US Pat. Num. 3,927,705 to Cromeens et al ( hereinafter Cromeens) as claimed in claim 8 and further in view of US Pat. Num. 20060070571 A1 to Martin Garcia ( hereinafter Garcia).
Regarding claim 9, Hansen does not explicitly teach the friction surface being a gripping surface.
Cromeens teaches the friction surface being a gripping surface(surface which positively grips). (See Cromeens, Abstract, col. 16, lines 20-25 and Figs. 1 -24.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to include the friction surface being a gripping surface, because Cromeens teaches this structure positively grips the sticks or timbers and permits variation of the space between adjacent timbers. (See Cromeens, Abstract, col. 4, lines 35-55; col. 15, lines 7 to col. 16, line 55 and Figs. 1, 21-24.)
Additionally, regarding claim 9, Hansen does not explicitly teach the gripping surface comprising a plurality of screw heads.
Garcia teaches a screw is known way for using friction engagement into a member. (See Garcia, Abstract, paragraph 37, and Fig. 3.)
The selection of something based on its known suitability for its intended use has been held to support a prima facie case of obviousness. Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. lnterchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945). See MPEP 2144.07. Therefore, taking the references as a whole, it would have been obvious to have the gripping surface comprising a plurality of screw heads with a reasonableexpectation of success, because a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize this as suitable for use with a surface which positively grips. (See Garcia, Abstract, paragraph 37, and Fig. 3.)
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat. Num. 5,115,844 to Hansen (hereinafter Hansen) in view of US Pat. Num. 6,033,503 to Radowicz et al ( hereinafter Radowicz) and US Pat. Num. 2,335,528 A1 to G. F. Niels (hereinafter Niels) as applied to claim 1 and further in view of US Pat. Num. 3,894,908 to Troutner et al ( hereinafter Troutner).
Regarding claim 11, Hansen does not explicitly teach the conveying system comprising a width adjustment system.
Troutner is direct to conveying wood articles.
Troutner teaches the conveying system comprising a width adjustment system (movable walls such as element 20) . (See Troutner, Abstract, col. 2, lines 17-25; col. 4, lines 8 -16; col. 6, lines 52- col. 7, line 7; col. 8, lines 15-30; col. 10, lines 9-22; and Figs. 1-22.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to include the conveying system comprising a width adjustment system, because Troutner teaches this structure allows substrates of different dimensions to be accomodated. (See Troutner, Abstract, col. 2, lines 17-25; col. 4, lines 8 -16; col. 6, lines 52- col. 7, line 7; col. 8, lines 15-30; col. 10, lines 9-22; and Figs. 1-22.)
Additionally regarding claim 11, Hansen does not explicitly teach the width adjustment assembly comprising a side portion comprising a side wall laterally movable toward a fixed portion comprising a side wall.
Troutner teaches the width adjustment system comprising a side portion comprising a side wall (companion frame member 20) laterally movable toward a fixed portion comprising a side wall (20 which is fixed to leg 18). (See Troutner, Abstract, col. 2, lines 17-25; col. 4, lines 8 -16; col. 6, lines 52- col. 7, line 7; col. 8, lines 15-30; col. 10, lines 9-22; and Figs. 1-22.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to include the conveying system comprising a width adjustment system, because Troutner teaches this structure allows substrates of different dimensions to be accommodated. (See Troutner, Abstract, col. 2, lines 17-25; col. 4, lines 8 -16; col. 6, lines 52- col. 7, line 7; col. 8, lines 15-30; col. 10, lines 9-22; and Figs. 1-22.)
Claims 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat. Num. 5,115,844 to Hansen (hereinafter Hansen) in view of US Pat. Num. 6,033,503 to Radowicz et al ( hereinafter Radowicz) and US Pat. Num. 2,335,528 A1 to G. F. Niels (hereinafter Niels) as applied to claim 1 and further in view of US Pat. Num. 5,296,257 to Knop et al ( hereinafter Knop).
Regarding claim 16, Hansen does not explicitly teach a pressure application system adapted to apply pressure on the filler applicator against the top surface of the wood board.
Knop teaches a pressure application system adapted to apply pressure on the filler applicator against the top surface of the wood board. (See Knop, Abstract, col. 2, lines 3-14, col. 4, lines 56-66, col. 6, lines 65- col. 7, line 25.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to substitute a pressure application system adapted to apply pressure on the filler applicator against the top surface of the wood board, through routine experimentation, with a reasonable expectation of success, to the select the proper pressure for the coating of the first part of the workpiece, as a result-effective variable, in order to provide the optimal weight of material per unit area for the coating . (See Knop, Abstract, col. 2, lines 3-14, col. 4, lines 56-66, col. 6, lines 65- col. 7, line 25.)
Regarding claim 17, Hansen does not explicitly teach a cylinder at each corner of a top portion of the filler applicator to apply a constant pressure over the top surface of the wood board.
Knop teaches a pressure application system adapted to apply pressure on the filler applicator against the top surface of the wood board. (See Knop, Abstract, col. 2, lines 3-14, col. 4, lines 56-66, col. 6, lines 65- col. 7, line 25.)
The selection of something based on its known suitability for its intended use has been held to support a prima facie case of obviousness. Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. lnterchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945). See MPEP 2144.07. Therefore, taking the references as a whole, it would have been obvious to have a cylinder at each corner of a top portion of the filler applicator to apply a constant pressure over the top surface of the wood board with a reasonable expectation of success, because a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize this as suitable way to apply pressure to a roller. (See Knop, Abstract, col. 2, lines 3-14, col. 4, lines 56-66, col. 6, lines 65- col. 7, line 25.)
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat. Num. 5,115,844 to Hansen (hereinafter Hansen) in view of US Pat. Num. 6,033,503 to Radowicz et al ( hereinafter Radowicz) and US Pat. Num. 2,335,528 A1 to G. F. Niels (hereinafter Niels) as applied to claim 1 and further in view of US Pat. Num. 6,189,682 to David Hill ( hereinafter Hill).
Regarding claim 18, Hansen does not explicitly teach a plurality of sensors connected to a controller for detecting presence of wood board, the controller being configure to feed the wood board based on signals of the sensors.
Hill is direct to conveying wood articles.
Hill teaches a plurality of sensors (660, 665) connected to a controller for detecting presence of wood board, the controller being configure to feed the wood board based on signals of the sensors. (See Hill, Abstract, col. 11, lines 25-39.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to include a plurality of sensors connected to a controller for detecting presence of wood board, the controller being configure to feed the wood board based on signals of the sensors, because Hill teaches this structure allows feed rate to be adjusted. (See Hill, Abstract, col. 11, lines 25-39.)
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat. Num. 5,115,844 to Hansen (hereinafter Hansen) in view of US Pat. Num. 6,033,503 to Radowicz et al ( hereinafter Radowicz) and US Pat. Num. 2,335,528 A1 to G. F. Niels (hereinafter Niels) as applied to claim 1 and further in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20100206221 A1 to Branca et al ( hereinafter Branca).
Regarding claim 23, Hansen does not explicitly teach an actuator configured to press the scrapper over the top surface of the board.
Branca is directed to applying an adhesive to a substrate.
Branco teaches an actuator (350) configured to press the scrapper (300) over the top surface of the board. (See Branca, Abstract, paragraph 166.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to include an actuator configured to press the scrapper over the top surface of the board, because Branca teaches this structure allows the adhesive to be spread out on the substrate. (See Branca, Abstract, paragraph 166.)
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat. Num. 5,115,844 to Hansen (hereinafter Hansen) in view of US Pat. Num. 6,033,503 to Radowicz et al ( hereinafter Radowicz) and US Pat. Num. 2,335,528 A1 to G. F. Niels (hereinafter Niels) as applied to claim 1 and further in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20160052249 A1 to Saito et al ( hereinafter Saito).
Regarding claim 24, Hansen does not explicitly teach spreader being a scrapper configured to remove excess of filler applied on the top surface of board
Saito is directed to applying an adhesive to a substrate.
Saito teaches the spreader being a scrapper (41) configured to remove excess of filler applied on the top surface of an outer peripheral surface. (See Saito, Abstract, paragraph 60.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to include the spreader being a scrapper configured to remove excess of filler applied on the top surface of board, because Saito teaches this structure allows the adhesive to be removed from an outer surface. (See Saito, Abstract, paragraph 60.)
Allowable Subject Matter
The following claim 1 drafted by the examiner and considered to distinguish patentably over the art of record in this application, presented to applicant for consideration was not accepted.
(Currently Amended) A system for repairing defects on a top surface of wood boards in a continuous wood board production line with a filler, comprising:
a filler applicator to be pressed against the top surface of a wood board being longitudinally moved under the filler applicator, the filler applicator being in fluid communication with a source of pressurized filler to create a sealed chamber between the top surface of the wood board and a bottom portion of the pressed against the top surface of the wood board, the filler applicator configured to apply the filler over the top of the wood boards, the filler applicator comprising:
a head adapted to receive filler from a reservoir and have a pressure applied on the head against a top surface of the wood board which is moving, as the wood board moves a layer of the filler is applied on the top surface of the wood board;
the head including a main body, said main body including: a filler input port, a filler output port, a cavity in communication with the filler input port and the filler output port, an inner chamber, and a seal positioned around a perimeter of the inner chamber of the main body, and
the filler output port including a spreader configured to spread [[a]] the layer of the
the spreader including a first opening which lets the pressurized filler exit the head toward the top surface of the wood board and a second opening adapted to receive a scraper for spreading the filler applied on the wood board; and
a conveyor to move the wood board toward and away from the filler applicator.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-9, 11, 13-18, and 23-24 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. US Pat. Num. 5,115,844 A1 to Torben Hansen (hereinafter Hansen) and US Pat. Num. 2,335,528 A1 to G. F. Niels (hereinafter Niels) are being used to address the new limitations added to claim 1.
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 KARL V KURPLE whose telephone number is (571)270-3477. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8 AM-5 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, Dah-Wei Yuan can be reached on (571) 272-1295. 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.
/KARL KURPLE/Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1717
Prosecution Insights