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 proposed amendments filed 05/15/2026 have been entered. Claims 1, 2, 5, 13, and 16 are currently under examination.
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.
Claims 1, 2, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2013-240899 (Sakamoto hereinafter) in view of US 2070065 (Pearmain hereinafter).
Regarding claim 1, Sakamoto teaches a veneer dewatering system that discloses a frame (Frame per “the elastic body 2b has an appropriate width H and A grooved composite upper roll formed by providing a plurality of grooves 3 having an appropriate depth U with an appropriate interval P, and an interval S significantly narrower than the thickness T of the veneer 4 In order to be opposed to the lower roll 1, the lower roll 1 is rotatably locked to a machine frame (not shown) of a dehydrator via a bearing (not shown) and, if necessary, the lower roll The drive source for 1 is shared, or it is provided to be driven to rotate in the direction of the arrow in the drawing at an appropriate drive speed via another drive source (not shown).”); a first roll rotatably supported by the frame (Roll 2 in Figures 1, 3, 4, and 6); a second roll rotatably supported by the frame and disposed parallel to the first roll at a distance smaller than a thickness of the veneer from the first roll (Roll 1 or the opposing roll in Figures 1, 3, 4, and 6 and “an interval S significantly narrower than the thickness T of the veneer” with Figure 4); and a rotation driving unit configured to drive to rotate at least one of the first and second rolls (“The drive source for 1 is shared, or it is provided to be driven to rotate in the direction of the arrow in the drawing at an appropriate drive speed via another drive source (not shown).”, wherein the first and second rolls, at least one of which is driven by the rotation driving unit (“The drive source for 1 is shared, or it is provided to be driven to rotate in the direction of the arrow in the drawing at an appropriate drive speed via another drive source (not shown).”), each include a shaft rotatably supported by the frame (Evident of the structure shown in the Figures 1, 3, ,4 and 6 along with the quoted part of Sakamoto regarding the frame not being shown), a cylinder disposed coaxially with the shaft on the outer periphery of the shaft (Cylinder 2a on the shaft mounted to the frame/drive source), an elastic cylindrical member arranged integrally on the outer periphery of the cylinder and coaxially with the shaft (Elastic member 26 as seen in Figures 3, 4, and duplicated in Figure 6).
Sakamoto is silent with respect to and a connecting unit positioned in a power transmission path between the shaft and the cylinder, and wherein the connecting unit is configured to connect the shaft and the cylinder to rotate them integrally when the elastic cylindrical member contacts the veneer in a first state, and release the connection between the shaft and the cylinder to rotate them relative to each other when the elastic cylindrical member contacts the veneer in a second state.
However, Pearmain teaches a clutch for a rotating device and relative rotation that discloses a connecting unit positioned in a power transmission path between a shaft and a cylinder (Clutch formed by 39/40/41 in Figure 4 where the equivalent shaft is the driving body 10 and the cylinder is the driven body connected to 39). The resultant combination would allow for the clutch of Pearmain to connect the driving shaft of Sakamoto and the driven cylinder/elastic member and disclose that wherein the connecting unit is configured to connect the shaft and the cylinder to rotate them integrally when the elastic cylindrical member contacts the veneer in a first state (When the clutch of Pearmain is engaged to clamp 39/40 between 41 in Figure 4 of Pearmain would allow for the outer body connected to 39 [the elastic member of Sakamoto to be driven by the shaft), and release the connection between the shaft and the cylinder to rotate them relative to each other when the elastic cylindrical member contacts the veneer in a second state (Unclamped position of the clutch to allow for relative rotation between the two bodies).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the shaft and cylinder/cylindrical elastic member of Sakamoto with the internal clutch of Pearmain to allow for relative rotation when moving the veneer when the drive source is not activated.
Regarding claim 2, Sakamoto’s modified teachings are described above in claim 1 where the combination of Sakamoto and Pearmain would further disclose that the connecting unit includes a circular plate supported by the shaft to be rotatable with the shaft (Circular plate 41 of Figure 4 of Pearmain), a friction plate facing the circular plate (Friction plates 39/40), wherein at least a part of the friction plate is arranged in the cylinder to be rotatable with the cylinder (Resultant combination for the friction plate of Pearmain to be within the cylinder of Sakamoto to allow for relative motion), and a pressing unit configured to press the friction plate against the circular plate (Pressing unit 20 in Figure 2 of Pearmain as similar shown in Figure 4).
Regarding claim 16, Sakamoto teaches a veneer dewatering system and method of operation that discloses a frame (Frame per “the elastic body 2b has an appropriate width H and A grooved composite upper roll formed by providing a plurality of grooves 3 having an appropriate depth U with an appropriate interval P, and an interval S significantly narrower than the thickness T of the veneer 4 In order to be opposed to the lower roll 1, the lower roll 1 is rotatably locked to a machine frame (not shown) of a dehydrator via a bearing (not shown) and, if necessary, the lower roll The drive source for 1 is shared, or it is provided to be driven to rotate in the direction of the arrow in the drawing at an appropriate drive speed via another drive source (not shown).”); a first roll rotatably supported by the frame (Roll 2 in Figures 1, 3, 4, and 6); a second roll rotatably supported by the frame and disposed parallel to the first roll at a distance smaller than a thickness of the veneer from the first roll (Roll 1 or the opposing roll in Figures 1, 3, 4, and 6 and “an interval S significantly narrower than the thickness T of the veneer” with Figure 4); and a rotation driving unit configured to drive to rotate at least one of the first and second rolls (“The drive source for 1 is shared, or it is provided to be driven to rotate in the direction of the arrow in the drawing at an appropriate drive speed via another drive source (not shown).”, wherein the first and second rolls, at least one of which is driven by the rotation driving unit (“The drive source for 1 is shared, or it is provided to be driven to rotate in the direction of the arrow in the drawing at an appropriate drive speed via another drive source (not shown).”), each include a shaft rotatably supported by the frame (Evident of the structure shown in the Figures 1, 3, ,4 and 6 along with the quoted part of Sakamoto regarding the frame not being shown), a cylinder disposed coaxially with the shaft on the outer periphery of the shaft (Cylinder 2a on the shaft mounted to the frame/drive source), an elastic cylindrical member arranged integrally on the outer periphery of the cylinder and coaxially with the shaft (Elastic member 26 as seen in Figures 3, 4, and duplicated in Figure 6), and the method comprising: connecting the shaft to the cylinder to cause the shaft and the cylinder to rotate integrally when the elastic cylindrical member contacts the veneer in a first state (Connection shown in Figures 3, 4, and 6 of Sakamoto).
Sakamoto is silent with respect to releasing the connection between the shaft and the cylinder to cause the shaft and the cylinder to rotate relative to each other when the elastic cylindrical member contacts the veneer in a second state, so that the water in the veneer is dewatered.
However, Pearmain teaches a clutch for a rotating device and relative rotation that discloses a connecting unit positioned in a power transmission path between a shaft and a cylinder (Clutch formed by 39/40/41 in Figure 4 where the equivalent shaft is the driving body 10 and the cylinder is the driven body connected to 39). The resultant combination would allow for the clutch of Pearmain to connect the driving shaft of Sakamoto therefore forming a connection between the shaft and the cylinder to allow unitary driving (When the clutch of Pearmain is engaged to clamp 39/40 between 41 in Figure 4 of Pearmain would allow for the outer body connected to 39 [the elastic member of Sakamoto to be driven by the shaft) and releasing the connection between the shaft and the cylinder to cause the shaft and the cylinder to rotate relative to each other when the elastic cylindrical member contacts the veneer in a second state, so that the water in the veneer is dewatered (Unclamped position of the clutch to allow for relative rotation between the two bodies).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the shaft and cylinder/cylindrical elastic member of Sakamoto with the internal clutch of Pearmain to allow for relative rotation when moving the veneer when the drive source is not activated.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2013-240899 (Sakamoto) in view of US 2070065 (Pearmain) and further in view of US 2002/0062876 (Koba hereinafter).
Regarding claim 5, Sakamoto’s modified teachings are described above in claim 2 but are silent with respect that the cylinder includes at least a first cylinder and a second cylinder, the first and second cylinders being arranged in series axially of the shaft and restrained from moving axially of the shaft, the elastic cylindrical member includes a first elastic cylindrical member and a second elastic cylindrical member, the first and second elastic cylindrical members being, respectively, arranged integrally with outer peripheries of the first and second cylinders, the circular plate includes a first circular plate and a second circular plate, the friction plate includes a third friction plate and a fourth friction plate, respectively, disposed axially on both sides of the shaft with respect to the first circular plate, and includes a fifth friction plate and a sixth friction plate, respectively, disposed axially on both sides of the shaft with respect to the second circular plate, the third and fourth friction plates are disposed in the first cylinder, the fifth and sixth friction plates are disposed in the second cylinder, and the pressing unit is configured to press at least one of the third and fourth friction plates directly against the first circular plate, and is configured to press at least one of the fifth and sixth friction plates directly against the second circular plate.
However, Koba teaches a veneer dewatering apparatus that discloses a roller with a first cylinder and a second cylinder, the first and second cylinders being arranged in series axially of the shaft and restrained from moving axially of the shaft (Figure 1 with split roller featuring external bodies 1A and 1B and internal shaft 12; the cylinder of Sakamoto would be split in a similar way to retain the split 2b of Sakamoto), an elastic cylindrical member includes a first elastic cylindrical member and a second elastic cylindrical member (exterior bodies 1A and 1B as taught to split the outer body 2B of Sakamoto), the first and second elastic cylindrical members being, respectively, arranged integrally with outer peripheries of the first and second cylinders (Evident from the structure shown in Figure 1 as applied to the structure of Sakamoto). The resultant combination would split the rollers of Sakamoto into a plurality of sections as shown by Koba Figure 1 and these split sections would necessitate the duplication of the clutch of Pearmain to be within each split section. This interpretation would then teach that the circular plate includes a first circular plate and a second circular plate (Plate 41 of Pearmain Figure 4 as duplicated between the split sections of the roller of Sakamoto), the friction plate includes a third friction plate and a fourth friction plate (Friction plates 39/40 of Pearmain as duplicated between each split section of the roller), respectively, disposed axially on both sides of the shaft with respect to the first circular plate (Figure 4 of Pearmain as applied to Sakamoto), and includes a fifth friction plate and a sixth friction plate, respectively, disposed axially on both sides of the shaft with respect to the second circular plate (Figure 4 of Pearmain as duplicated to the split off roller would feature duplicated friction plates 39/40 of Pearmain serving the same function as outlined above in Claim 1’s rejection), the third and fourth friction plates are disposed in the first cylinder (Combination of Sakamoto and Pearmain per the rejection of Claim 1 above), the fifth and sixth friction plates are disposed in the second cylinder (Duplication of Pearmain into Sakamoto as now possible with the split roller of Koba), and the pressing unit is configured to press at least one of the third and fourth friction plates directly against the first circular plate (Operation of 20 in Pearmain), and is configured to press at least one of the fifth and sixth friction plates directly against the second circular plate (Operation of 20 of Pearmain to press all of the friction plates of each split roller together).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the roller of Sakamoto with the first and second axially split roller of Koba to allow for different faces to be used and apply desired surface features to the veneer.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 13 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Applicant has modified claim 13 is such a manner that would not be read on by the combination of Sakamoto, Pearmain, and Koba.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05/15/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s argument directed towards the Sakamoto reference and the lack of disclosure of the cylinder required by claims 1 and 16 has been reviewed but is not found to be persuasive. The above rejection provided by the Examiner states “a cylinder disposed coaxially with the shaft on the outer periphery of the shaft (Cylinder 2a on the shaft mounted to the frame/drive source) an elastic cylindrical member arranged integrally on the outer periphery of the cylinder and coaxially with the shaft (Elastic member 26 as seen in Figures 3, 4, and duplicated in Figure 6).” Applicant argues that the cylinder and shaft are separate however this limitation is not within the claims and therefore is not considered by the Examiner. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
In response to applicant's argument that the rejection does not address Applicant’s reasons for combinations within the specification, the fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985).
Applicant’s argument regarding the rejection of claim 5 utilizing the Koba reference has been reviewed but is not found to be persuasive. Koba teaches a dewatering apparatus and in Figure 1 shows a split roller featuring external bodies 1A and 1B and internal shaft 12 where the cylinder of Sakamoto would be split in a similar way to retain the split 2b of Sakamoto. However, Applicant further directs their argument to the prior combination with the clutch of Pearmain. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
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 CONNOR J. TREMARCHE whose telephone number is (571)272-2175. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 0700-1700 Eastern.
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, MICHAEL HOANG can be reached at (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 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.
/CONNOR J TREMARCHE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3762
Prosecution Insights