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 .
Examiner’s Note
This examination considers the preliminary amendment submitted 15 September 2023. Accordingly, claims 1 – 18 are pending.
Claim Interpretation
Claims 1, 2, and 5 each require a wooden board comprising “small thin wood pieces”. The examiner considers the scope of the term “small” in each of these claims to encompass wood pieces which have the dimensional properties these claims respectively recited. As such, claims 6, 11, and 15 (which respectively depend on claims 1, 2, and 5) are understood to have “tiny” thin wood pieces to be differentiated from the “small” thin wood pieces on the basis of the smaller area required in claims 6, 11, and 15.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 – 18 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.
Regarding claim 1, claim 1 requires a “large number of small thin wood pieces” (see line 2).
The term “large number” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “large” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Notably, the term “large number” renders the phrase “small thin wood pieces” indefinite.
Regarding claims 4 and 6 – 9, each of claims 4 and 6 – 9 depends, directly or indirectly, on claim 1. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers. AIA 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph. Accordingly, each of claims 4 and 6 – 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for the same reasons as claim 1.
Regarding claim 2, claim 2 requires a “large number of small thin wood pieces” (see line 2).
The term “large number” in claim 2 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “large” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Notably, the term “large number” renders the phrase “small thin wood pieces” indefinite.
Regarding claims 3 and 10 – 14, each of claims 3 and 10 – 14 depends, directly or indirectly, on claim 2. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers. AIA 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph. Accordingly, each of claims 3 and 10 – 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for the same reasons as claim 2.
Regarding claim 5, claim 5 requires a “large number of small thin wood pieces” (see line 2).
The term “large number” in claim 5 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “large” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Notably, the term “large number” renders the phrase “small thin wood pieces” indefinite.
Regarding claims 15 – 18, each of claims 15 – 18 depends, directly or indirectly, on claim 5. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers. AIA 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph. Accordingly, each of claims 15 – 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for the same reasons as claim 5.
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1 – 5, 8, 10, 13, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Michanickl (EP 2,574,455 A1, referencing a machine translation thereof provided with this Office Action).
Regarding claim 1, Michanickl discloses a wooden board obtained by laminating, adhering, and integrating, in an aggregated state, a large number of small thin wood pieces with top and bottom surfaces extending along fibers (wood “chips” are laminated, adhered, and integrated, in an aggregated state, to form a “wood-based panel”, where the “chips” are cut in the direction of the wood grain: e.g. ¶¶ [0013] – [0054]),
the small thin wood pieces each having a thickness ranging from 0.2 mm to 1 mm between the top and bottom surfaces (“chip thickness”: e.g. ¶ [0022]), and an aspect ratio ranging from 0.2 to 66.67 where the aspect ratio is defined by (a first length along the fibers)/(a second length in a direction orthogonal to the fibers) (the “chips” have a length of 5 to 200 mm relative to a width of 3 to 25 mm, noting the direction of cutting with wood grain, where 0.2 = 5 mm/25 mm and 66.67 = 200 mm/3 mm: e.g. ¶¶ [0019] – [0022]).
Michanickl’s ranges for the thickness of the small thin wood pieces and the aspect ratio of the small thin wood pieces overlap the respective claimed ranges. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976). See MPEP § 2144.05, I.
Regarding claim 2, Michanickl discloses a wooden board obtained by laminating, adhering, and integrating, in an aggregated state, a large number of small thin wood pieces with top and bottom surfaces extending along fibers (wood “chips” are laminated, adhered, and integrated, in an aggregated state, to form a “wood-based panel”, where the “chips” are cut in the direction of the wood grain: e.g. ¶¶ [0013] – [0054]),
the small thin wood pieces each including the top and bottom surfaces with an area ranging from 0.15 cm2 to 50 cm2 (the “chips” have a length of 5 to 200 mm relative to a width of 3 to 25 mm, where 0.15 cm2 = 5 mm * 3 mm * (1 cm2/100 mm2) and 50 cm2 = 200mm * 25 mm * (1 cm2/100 mm2): e.g. ¶¶ [0019] – [0022]).
Michanickl’s range for the area of the small thin wood pieces overlaps the claimed range. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976). See MPEP § 2144.05, I.
Regarding claim 3, in addition to the limitations of claim 2, Michanickl discloses the small thin wood pieces each have an aspect ratio ranging from 0.2 to 66.67 where the aspect ratio is defined by (a first length along the fibers)/(a second length in a direction orthogonal to the fibers) (the “chips” have a length of 5 to 200 mm relative to a width of 3 to 25 mm, noting the direction of cutting with wood grain, where 0.2 = 5 mm/25 mm and 66.67 = 200 mm/3 mm: e.g. ¶¶ [0019] – [0022]).
Michanickl’s range for the aspect ratio of the small thin wood pieces overlaps the claimed range. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976). See MPEP § 2144.05, I.
Regarding claim 4, in addition to the limitations of claim 1, Michanickl discloses the small thin wood pieces each including the top and bottom surfaces with an area ranging from 0.15 cm2 to 50 cm2 (the “chips” have a length of 5 to 200 mm relative to a width of 3 to 25 mm, where 0.15 cm2 = 5 mm * 3 mm * (1 cm2/100 mm2) and 50 cm2 = 200mm * 25 mm * (1 cm2/100 mm2): e.g. ¶¶ [0019] – [0022]).
Michanickl’s range for the area of the small thin wood pieces overlaps the claimed range. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976). See MPEP § 2144.05, I.
Regarding claim 5, Michanickl discloses a wooden board obtained by laminating, adhering, and integrating, in an aggregated state, a large number of small thin wood pieces with top and bottom surfaces extending along fibers (wood “chips” are laminated, adhered, and integrated, in an aggregated state, to form a “wood-based panel”, where the “chips” are cut in the direction of the wood grain: e.g. ¶¶ [0013] – [0054]),
the small thin wood pieces each having a bulk density of 120 kg/m3 or less (“chips” with “very low bulk density” in the cited range: e.g. ¶ [0017]), and including the top and bottom surfaces with an area ranging from 0.15 cm2 to 50 cm2 (the “chips” have a length of 5 to 200 mm relative to a width of 3 to 25 mm, where 0.15 cm2 = 5 mm * 3 mm * (1 cm2/100 mm2) and 50 cm2 = 200mm * 25 mm * (1 cm2/100 mm2): e.g. ¶¶ [0019] – [0022]).
Michanickl’s ranges for the bulk density of the small thin wood pieces and the area of the small thin wood pieces overlaps the claimed range. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976). See MPEP § 2144.05, I.
Regarding claim 8, in addition to the limitations of claim 1, Michanickl discloses the wooden board has a density of 714 kg/m3 or less (“middle layer” has a density of 200 kg/m3 to 400 kg/m3 and “cover layers”/“top layers” have a density of 550 kg/m3 to 1500 kg/m3, the ratio of the thickness of “top layers” being below 2:5, where the highest density is achieved 2 units of thickness of “cover layer” at maximum density and 5 units of thickness of “middle layer” at maximum density, i.e. [(2 units * 1500 kg/m3) + (5 units * 400 kg/m3)]/(2 units + 5 units): e.g. ¶¶ [0016], [0017], [0031]).
Michanickl’s density of the wooden board overlaps the claimed range. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976). See MPEP § 2144.05, I.
Regarding claim 10, in addition to the limitations of claim 2, Michanickl discloses the small thin wood pieces each having a thickness ranging from 0.2 mm to 1 mm between the top and bottom surfaces (“chip thickness”: e.g. ¶ [0022]).
Michanickl’s range for the thickness of the small thin wood pieces overlaps the claimed range. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976). See MPEP § 2144.05, I.
Regarding claim 13, in addition to the limitations of claim 2, Michanickl discloses the wooden board has a density of 714 kg/m3 or less (“middle layer” has a density of 200 kg/m3 to 400 kg/m3 and “cover layers”/“top layers” have a density of 550 kg/m3 to 1500 kg/m3, the ratio of the thickness of “top layers” being below 2:5, where the highest density is achieved 2 units of thickness of “cover layer” at maximum density and 5 units of thickness of “middle layer” at maximum density, i.e. [(2 units * 1500 kg/m3) + (5 units * 400 kg/m3)]/(2 units + 5 units): e.g. ¶¶ [0016], [0017], [0031]).
Michanickl’s density of the wooden board overlaps the claimed range. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976). See MPEP § 2144.05, I.
Regarding claim 17, in addition to the limitations of claim 5, Michanickl discloses the wooden board has a density of 714 kg/m3 or less (“middle layer” has a density of 200 kg/m3 to 400 kg/m3 and “cover layers”/“top layers” have a density of 550 kg/m3 to 1500 kg/m3, the ratio of the thickness of “top layers” being below 2:5, where the highest density is achieved 2 units of thickness of “cover layer” at maximum density and 5 units of thickness of “middle layer” at maximum density, i.e. [(2 units * 1500 kg/m3) + (5 units * 400 kg/m3)]/(2 units + 5 units): e.g. ¶¶ [0016], [0017], [0031]).
Michanickl’s density of the wooden board overlaps the claimed range. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976). See MPEP § 2144.05, I.
Claims 6, 7, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Michanickl as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kuvik (US 2020/0156347 A1).
Regarding claim 6, in addition to the limitations of claim 1, Michanickl discloses a wooden layer is laminated and integrated on each of the top and bottom surfaces of the wooden board (“cover layers”: e.g. ¶¶ [0016], [0018], [0051] – [0053]).
Although Michanickl is not explicit as to the wooden board being obtained by laminating, adhering, and integrating tiny thin wood pieces with a smaller area than the small thin wood pieces in an aggregated state, this feature would have been obvious in view of Kuvik.
Kuvik provides a wooden layer laminated and integrated on each of the top and bottom surfaces of the wooden board, wherein the wooden board is obtained by laminating, adhering, and integrating tiny thin wood pieces with a smaller area than the small thin wood pieces in an aggregated state, e.g. by providing a wooden layer with such tiny thin wood pieces, as this improves surface smoothness and therefore surface quality (“bottom surface layer” and “top surface layer” either side of a “core layer”, where the “bottom surface layer” and the “top surface layer” have pieces of a smaller size: e.g. ¶¶ [0005] – [0049]).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to modify Michanickl’s wooden board by laminating, adhering, and integrating tiny thin wood pieces with a smaller area than the small thin wood pieces in an aggregated state, e.g. by providing a wooden layer with such tiny thin wood pieces, in order to improve surface smoothness and therefore surface quality as Kuvik suggests.
Regarding claim 7, in addition to the limitations of claim 6, Kuvik discloses the wooden layer has a thickness accounting for, e.g., 8% of a total thickness of the wooden board (e.g. ¶ [0035]), which is within the claimed range. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976). See MPEP § 2144.05, I.
Regarding claim 9, although Michanickl is not explicit as to the wooden board having a root mean square height Sq ranging from 0.005 µm to 0.015 µm on a surface, or an arithmetic mean height Sa ranging from 0.002 µm to 0.007 µm on the surface, this feature would have been obvious in view of Kuvik.
Michanickl discloses a wooden board made from excessively large wood pieces is too rough (e.g. ¶ [0018]), meaning smaller wood pieces will reduce the roughness and thus also a root mean square height Sq or an arithmetic mean height Sa.
To this end, Kuvik provides a wooden layer laminated and integrated on each of the top and bottom surfaces of the wooden board, e.g. a wooden layer with tiny thin wood pieces, as this improves surface smoothness and therefore surface quality (“bottom surface layer” and “top surface layer” either side of a “core layer”, where the “bottom surface layer” and the “top surface layer” have pieces of a smaller size: e.g. ¶¶ [0005] – [0049]).
Given Michanickl discloses manufacturing parameters can be selected based on the desired properties (e.g. ¶ [0054]), one of ordinary skill in the art would thus have the means and motivation to determine a suitable root mean square height Sq or arithmetic mean height Sa which is sufficiently small to create the necessary smoothness and surface quality Kuvik notes is desirable.
“[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). See also MPEP § 2144.05, II, A. Accordingly, it would have been obvious for the wooden board to have a root mean square height Sq ranging from 0.005 µm to 0.015 µm on a surface, or an arithmetic mean height Sa ranging from 0.002 µm to 0.007 µm on the surface as Michanickl and Kuvik suggest, the motivation being to have desirable smoothness and surface quality.
Claims 11, 12, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Michanickl as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Kuvik.
Regarding claim 11, in addition to the limitations of claim 1, Michanickl discloses a wooden layer is laminated and integrated on each of the top and bottom surfaces of the wooden board (“cover layers”: e.g. ¶¶ [0016], [0018], [0051] – [0053]).
Although Michanickl is not explicit as to the wooden board being obtained by laminating, adhering, and integrating tiny thin wood pieces with a smaller area than the small thin wood pieces in an aggregated state, this feature would have been obvious in view of Kuvik.
Kuvik provides a wooden layer laminated and integrated on each of the top and bottom surfaces of the wooden board, wherein the wooden board is obtained by laminating, adhering, and integrating tiny thin wood pieces with a smaller area than the small thin wood pieces in an aggregated state, e.g. by providing a wooden layer with such tiny thin wood pieces, as this improves surface smoothness and therefore surface quality (“bottom surface layer” and “top surface layer” either side of a “core layer”, where the “bottom surface layer” and the “top surface layer” have pieces of a smaller size: e.g. ¶¶ [0005] – [0049]).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to modify Michanickl’s wooden board by laminating, adhering, and integrating tiny thin wood pieces with a smaller area than the small thin wood pieces in an aggregated state, e.g. by providing a wooden layer with such tiny thin wood pieces, in order to improve surface smoothness and therefore surface quality as Kuvik suggests.
Regarding claim 12, in addition to the limitations of claim 11, Kuvik discloses the wooden layer has a thickness accounting for, e.g., 8% of a total thickness of the wooden board (e.g. ¶ [0035]), which is within the claimed range. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976). See MPEP § 2144.05, I.
Regarding claim 14, although Michanickl is not explicit as to the wooden board having a root mean square height Sq ranging from 0.005 µm to 0.015 µm on a surface, or an arithmetic mean height Sa ranging from 0.002 µm to 0.007 µm on the surface, this feature would have been obvious in view of Kuvik.
Michanickl discloses a wooden board made from excessively large wood pieces is too rough (e.g. ¶ [0018]), meaning smaller wood pieces will reduce the roughness and thus also a root mean square height Sq or an arithmetic mean height Sa.
To this end, Kuvik provides a wooden layer laminated and integrated on each of the top and bottom surfaces of the wooden board, e.g. a wooden layer with tiny thin wood pieces, as this improves surface smoothness and therefore surface quality (“bottom surface layer” and “top surface layer” either side of a “core layer”, where the “bottom surface layer” and the “top surface layer” have pieces of a smaller size: e.g. ¶¶ [0005] – [0049]).
Given Michanickl discloses manufacturing parameters can be selected based on the desired properties (e.g. ¶ [0054]), one of ordinary skill in the art would thus have the means and motivation to determine a suitable root mean square height Sq or arithmetic mean height Sa which is sufficiently small to create the necessary smoothness and surface quality Kuvik notes is desirable.
“[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). See also MPEP § 2144.05, II, A. Accordingly, it would have been obvious for the wooden board to have a root mean square height Sq ranging from 0.005 µm to 0.015 µm on a surface, or an arithmetic mean height Sa ranging from 0.002 µm to 0.007 µm on the surface as Michanickl and Kuvik suggest, the motivation being to have desirable smoothness and surface quality.
Claims 15, 16, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Michanickl as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Kuvik.
Regarding claim 15, in addition to the limitations of claim 1, Michanickl discloses a wooden layer is laminated and integrated on each of the top and bottom surfaces of the wooden board (“cover layers”: e.g. ¶¶ [0016], [0018], [0051] – [0053]).
Although Michanickl is not explicit as to the wooden board being obtained by laminating, adhering, and integrating tiny thin wood pieces with a smaller area than the small thin wood pieces in an aggregated state, this feature would have been obvious in view of Kuvik.
Kuvik provides a wooden layer laminated and integrated on each of the top and bottom surfaces of the wooden board, wherein the wooden board is obtained by laminating, adhering, and integrating tiny thin wood pieces with a smaller area than the small thin wood pieces in an aggregated state, e.g. by providing a wooden layer with such tiny thin wood pieces, as this improves surface smoothness and therefore surface quality (“bottom surface layer” and “top surface layer” either side of a “core layer”, where the “bottom surface layer” and the “top surface layer” have pieces of a smaller size: e.g. ¶¶ [0005] – [0049]).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to modify Michanickl’s wooden board by laminating, adhering, and integrating tiny thin wood pieces with a smaller area than the small thin wood pieces in an aggregated state, e.g. by providing a wooden layer with such tiny thin wood pieces, in order to improve surface smoothness and therefore surface quality as Kuvik suggests.
Regarding claim 16, in addition to the limitations of claim 15, Kuvik discloses the wooden layer has a thickness accounting for, e.g., 8% of a total thickness of the wooden board (e.g. ¶ [0035]), which is within the claimed range. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976). See MPEP § 2144.05, I.
Regarding claim 18, although Michanickl is not explicit as to the wooden board having a root mean square height Sq ranging from 0.005 µm to 0.015 µm on a surface, or an arithmetic mean height Sa ranging from 0.002 µm to 0.007 µm on the surface, this feature would have been obvious in view of Kuvik.
Michanickl discloses a wooden board made from excessively large wood pieces is too rough (e.g. ¶ [0018]), meaning smaller wood pieces will reduce the roughness and thus also a root mean square height Sq or an arithmetic mean height Sa.
To this end, Kuvik provides a wooden layer laminated and integrated on each of the top and bottom surfaces of the wooden board, e.g. a wooden layer with tiny thin wood pieces, as this improves surface smoothness and therefore surface quality (“bottom surface layer” and “top surface layer” either side of a “core layer”, where the “bottom surface layer” and the “top surface layer” have pieces of a smaller size: e.g. ¶¶ [0005] – [0049]).
Given Michanickl discloses manufacturing parameters can be selected based on the desired properties (e.g. ¶ [0054]), one of ordinary skill in the art would thus have the means and motivation to determine a suitable root mean square height Sq or arithmetic mean height Sa which is sufficiently small to create the necessary smoothness and surface quality Kuvik notes is desirable.
“[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). See also MPEP § 2144.05, II, A. Accordingly, it would have been obvious for the wooden board to have a root mean square height Sq ranging from 0.005 µm to 0.015 µm on a surface, or an arithmetic mean height Sa ranging from 0.002 µm to 0.007 µm on the surface as Michanickl and Kuvik suggest, the motivation being to have desirable smoothness and surface quality.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ETHAN A UTT whose telephone number is (571)270-0356. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday, 7:30 A.M. to 5:00 P.M. Central.
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, Veronica Ewald can be reached at 571-272-8519. 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.
/ETHAN A. UTT/Examiner, Art Unit 1783
/MARIA V EWALD/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1783
Prosecution Insights