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 .
Withdrawn Objections/Rejections
The objection to the Specification and Drawings of record in the previous Office Action mailed on 1/16/2026 has been withdrawn due to Applicant's amendment filed on 3/2/2026.
The 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) rejection of claims 2, 4, 5 and 7-10 as being anticipated by Leutermann (DE102009034706A1) of record in the previous Office Action mailed on 1/16/2026 has been withdrawn due to Applicant's amendment filed on 3/2/2026.
The 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of claims 3 and 6 as being unpatentable over Leutermann (DE102009034706A1) of record in the previous Office Action mailed on 1/16/2026 has been withdrawn due to Applicant's amendment filed on 3/2/2026.
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.
Claims 2-8, 10 and 13-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Savva (WO 2018/184061A1).
Regarding claims 10 and 13, Savva discloses a hybrid component (Figs. 1-4, device 10) comprising a first part (200) including a top surface (outer side 224 of first arm 202A), a bottom surface (outer side 224 of second arm 202B), a side surface (205) interconnecting the top and bottom surfaces, and a structural zone on the top surface having the machine-deformed and closed surface structuring with machined recesses (mating means on outer side 224), and a second part (100) including a form-fitting zone with elevations (114) that engage into the machined recesses of the surface structuring, such that a full surface form fit is realized in a transverse direction in relation to the recesses (Figs. 1-4; paragraph [0069]), wherein the structural zone on the top surface is larger than the form-fitting zone on the second part that covers the top surface of the first part (Figs. 1-4; paragraph [00139]).
Savva fails to specifically teach the first part (200) being a wood part and the second part (100) being a plastic part. However, Savva teaches the first and second parts may include plastic, wood or a combination thereof, and that the first and second parts can be formed from different materials (paragraph [00109]).
Thus, 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 device in Savva to have the first part (200) be wood and the second part (100) be plastic, if so desired, in order to form the device.
Regarding claim 2, Savva discloses the recesses having a pattern (paragraph [0071]).
Regarding claim 3, Savva fails to teach the recesses having a depth that is at most 15% of a material thickness of the first part in a region of the structural zone. Savva shows in Figs. 1-4 that the recesses are not that deep. Thus, 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 depth of the recesses in Savva to be at most 15% of a material thickness of the wood part in a region of the structural zone, if so desired, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art and is therefore obvious. MPEP 2144.04.
Regarding claim 4, Savva discloses the first part (200) is formed from a panel-shaped body (Figs. 1-4), and the structural zone (224) is formed over a full surface in an edge region of the body (Figs. 1-4).
Regarding claim 5, Savva discloses the first part in a region of surface structuring can be made of solid wood (paragraph [00109]). Furthermore, claim 5 defines the product by how the product was made. The limitation “the surface structuring is not manufactured in a material lifting manner" is deemed a process limitation. Thus, claim 5 is a product-by-process claim. For purposes of examination, product-by-process claims are not limited to the manipulation of the recited steps, only the structure implied by the steps. See MPEP 2113. In the present case, the recited step implies forming a region of surface structuring on the wood part. As shown above, Savva suggests such a product. The method of forming the product is not germane to the issue of patentability of the product itself. MPEP 2113.
Regarding claim 6, Savva fails to specifically teach the structural zone being at least 10% larger than the form fitting zone. In Figs. 1-4, the structural zone of the first part is shown to be larger than the form fitting zone. 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 structural zone in Savva to be at least 10% larger than the form fitting zone, if so desired, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art and is therefore obvious. MPEP 2144.04.
Regarding claim 7, Savva discloses there is no material bonding between the first part and the second part (100 and 200) in a region of the form-fitting zone (Figs. 1-4).
Regarding claim 8, Savva discloses the component is a semi-finished product (Figs. 1-4).
Regarding claim 14, Savva discloses the second part (100) has a bifurcated end (102A and 102B) that extends only partially along the top and bottom surfaces (224) of the first part (Figs. 1-4).
Regarding claim 15, Savva discloses the bifurcated end (102A and 102B) having a variable thickness (Figs. 1-4).
Regarding claim 16, Savva discloses a recess (116) is disposed in the bifurcated end into which the first part extends (Figs. 1-4).
Regarding claim 17, Savva discloses one portion of the first part is positioned within the recess and another portion of the first part is positioned outside of the recess (Figs. 1-4).
Regarding claim 18, Savva discloses a non-structural zone (205) being defined on a side surface of the first part that interconnects the top and bottom surfaces of the first part (Figs. 1-4).
Regarding claim 19, Savva discloses the structural zone (214) being disposed on a portion of the top surface and non-structural zone being disposed on a different portion of the top surface (Figs. 1-4).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 3/2/2026, with respect to claims 2-8, 10 and 13-19 have been considered, but are moot in view of the new ground of rejection and 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.
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 CATHERINE A SIMONE whose telephone number is (571)272-1501. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-4pm.
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, Frank Vineis can be reached at 571-270-1547. 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.
CATHERINE A. SIMONE
Examiner
Art Unit 1781
/Catherine A. Simone/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1781
Prosecution Insights