DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Rikitake et al. (Japanese Patent Publication No. JP 2006-240155 A, machine language translation provide and cited below).
Regarding claim 1, Rikitake discloses a system for treating a rectangular workpiece (Abstract, FIG. 1 of Rikitake, chemical liquid removing device which can be used to treat lumber), the system comprising: a conveyor extending along a longitudinal direction (FIG. 1, [0024] of Rikitake, device includes a roller conveyor including roller #6a), wherein the conveyor enables movement of the rectangular workpiece being restrained in a latitudinal direction (FIG. 1, [0024] of Rikitake, device includes a roller conveyor which would necessarily enable movement of the lumber in a longitudinal direction along the conveyor and constrain movement in a latitudinal direction other than the longitudinal direction); and a first pair of side brushes, a top brush, and a bottom brush sequentially disposed along the conveyor (FIGS. 1, 2 and 4, [0028] of Rikitake, device includes a plurality of groups of brushes #3 #4 contacting upper, lower and both side surfaces of the lumber; since a plurality of brushes in sequence are positioned on each side of the lumber, some of the side, top and bottom brushes would necessarily be positioned sequentially with respect to one another), wherein each said brush is adjustably fixed relative to the conveyor so as to level a fluid treatment applied along each surface of the rectangular workpiece ([0028] of Rikitake, brushes are adjustable).
Regarding claim 2, Rikitake discloses that the latitudinal direction is orthogonal relative to the longitudinal direction (FIG. 1, [0024] of Rikitake, roller conveyor would necessarily constrain movement of the lumber in a direction orthogonal to the longitudinal direction).
Regarding claim 3, Rikitake discloses the system further comprising a second pair of side brushes disposed along the conveyor aft the bottom brush (FIGS. 1, 2 and 4, [0028] of Rikitake, device includes a plurality of groups of brushes #3 #4 contacting upper, lower and both side surfaces of the lumber; group of side brushes include brushes which would necessarily be positioned after one or more of the bottom brushes).
Regarding claim 4, Rikitake discloses that the fluid treatment is applied along each surface of the rectangular workpiece by way of a spray zone disposed along the conveyor fore the first pair of side brushes (FIG. 4, [0033] of Rikitake, device includes a plurality of spray nozzles #7 configured to apply chemical solution to all sides of lumber).
Regarding claim 5, Rikitake discloses that the spray zone is defined, in part, by a plurality of application conduits (FIG. 4 of Rikitake, device includes pipes or conduits which feed the nozzles #7).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rikitake in view of Poletika et al. (U.S. Patent No. 3,271,184).
Regarding claim 6, Rikitake does not specifically disclose the system further comprising a pair of guides fore the first pair of side brushes, wherein the pair of guides are adjustable fixed relative to the conveyor so as to restrain the rectangular workpiece passing between the pair of guides. Poletika, however, discloses an apparatus for the continuous application of coatings to strip materials (Abstract of Poletika) wherein the device includes a pair of vertical guide members #256 mounted on either side of the coating mechanism (FIG. 14, 7:74-8:3 of Poletika). According to Poletika, the guide members ensure proper alignment of the units of strip material as they pass through the coating station of the device (7:74-8:3 of Poletika). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the device of Rikitake with a pair of vertical guide members as taught by Poletika. One of skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to ensure proper alignment of the units of strip material as they pass through the coating station of the device as taught by Poletika (7:74-8:3 of Poletika).
Regarding claim 7, Rikitake and Poletika suggest that a lateral gap defined between the pair of guides is approximately equal to a lateral gap defined between the first pair of side brushes. Moreover, Poletika discloses that the guide members are the same width as the strip material (FIG. 14 of Poletika) and Rikitake discloses that the brushes are configured to abut the surfaces of the wood and are therefore spaced apart a distance approximately the same as the lumber dimension (FIG. 4, [0028] of Rikitake; it is noted that the claim does not define “approximately equal” and the claim would therefore encompass differences such as those suggested by Rikitake and Poletika).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rikitake in view of Story (U.S. Patent No. 3,745,971).
Regarding claim 6, Rikitake does not specifically disclose the system further comprising a pair of dust brushes disposed along the conveyor for the first pair of side brushes. Story, however, discloses a coating apparatus for lumber (Abstract of Story) wherein the inlet and the outlet openings of the coating apparatus include wipers comprising flexible brushes on all four sides of the opening (FIGS. 4 and 5, 5:4-9 of Story, inlet wiper #15 and outlet wiper #18 which include brush elements #35 #36 #37 #38). Story discloses that the wiper #18 serves to wipe away any surface contaminants such as sawdust (7:10-13 of Story). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the device of Rikitake with inlet and outlet wipers as taught by Story. One of skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to wipe away any surface contaminants such as sawdust as taught by Story (7:10-13 of Story).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rikitake in view of Story and Poletika.
Regarding claim 9, Rikitake discloses a device for treating a rectangular workpiece (Abstract, FIG. 1 of Rikitake, chemical liquid removing device which can be used to treat lumber), the device comprising: a conveyor extending along a longitudinal direction, wherein the conveyor enables movement of the rectangular workpiece being restrained in a latitudinal direction (FIG. 1, [0024] of Rikitake, device includes a roller conveyor including roller #6a; roller conveyor would necessarily enable movement of the lumber in a longitudinal direction along the conveyor and constrain movement in a latitudinal direction other than the longitudinal direction); a first pair of side brushes, a top brush, a bottom brush, and a second pair of side brushes sequentially disposed along the conveyor (FIGS. 1, 2 and 4, [0028] of Rikitake, device includes a plurality of groups of brushes #3 #4 contacting upper, lower and both side surfaces of the lumber; since a plurality of brushes in sequence are positioned on each side of the lumber, some of the side, top and bottom brushes would necessarily be positioned sequentially with respect to one another), wherein each said brush is adjustably fixed relative to the conveyor so as to level a fluid treatment applied along each surface of the rectangular workpiece ([0028] of Rikitake, brushes are adjustable), wherein the fluid treatment is applied along each surface of the rectangular workpiece by way of a spray zone disposed along the conveyor (FIG. 4, [0033] of Rikitake, device includes a plurality of spray nozzles #7 configured to apply chemical solution to all sides of lumber), wherein the spray zone is defined, in part, by a plurality of application conduits (FIG. 4 of Rikitake, device includes pipes or conduits which feed the nozzles #7).
Rikitake does not disclose a pair of dust brushes, wherein the spray nozzles are between the pair of dust brushes and the first pair of side brushes. Story, however, discloses a coating apparatus for lumber (Abstract of Story) wherein the inlet and the outlet openings of the coating apparatus include wipers comprising flexible brushes on all four sides of the opening (FIGS. 4 and 5, 5:4-9 of Story, inlet wiper #15 and outlet wiper #18 which include brush elements #35 #36 #37 #38). Story discloses that wiper #18 serves to wipe away any surface contaminants such as sawdust (7:10-13 of Story). Since the inlet wiper #15 also contacts the lumber surface (FIG. 4 of Story), the inlet wiper #15 would also wipe away surface contaminants such as sawdust. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the device of Rikitake with inlet and outlet wipers as taught by Story. One of skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to wipe away any surface contaminants such as sawdust as taught by Story (7:10-13 of Story). The inlet wiper would be positioned at the inlet to the coating apparatus of of Rikitake and therefore before the spray nozzles #7 and the brush members #3 #4 (FIG. 4 of Rikitake).
Rikitake does not disclose a pair of guides fore the first pair of side brushes, wherein the pair of guides are adjustable fixed relative to the conveyor so as to restrain the rectangular workpiece passing between the pair of guides wherein a lateral gap defined between the pair of guides is approximately equal to a lateral gap defined between the first pair of side brushes. Poletika, however, discloses an apparatus for the continuous application of coatings to strip materials (Abstract of Poletika) wherein the device includes a pair of vertical guide members #256 mounted on either side of the coating mechanism (FIG. 14, 7:74-8:3 of Poletika). According to Poletika, the guide members ensure proper alignment of the units of strip material as they pass through the coating station of the device (7:74-8:3 of Poletika). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the device of Rikitake with a pair of vertical guide members as taught by Poletika. One of skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to ensure proper alignment of the units of strip material as they pass through the coating station of the device as taught by Poletika (7:74-8:3 of Poletika). Rikitake and Poletika suggest that a lateral gap defined between the pair of guides is approximately equal to a lateral gap defined between the first pair of side brushes. Moreover, Poletika discloses that the guide members are the same width as the strip material (FIG. 14 of Poletika) and Rikitake discloses that the brushes are configured to abut the surfaces of the wood and are therefore spaced apart a distance approximately the same as the lumber dimension (FIG. 4, [0028] of Rikitake; it is noted that the claim does not define “approximately equal” and the claim would therefore encompass differences such as those suggested by Rikitake and Poletika). Since Poletika suggest mounting the guides on either side of the coating mechanism, one pair of guide members would necessarily be mounted fore the first pair of side brushes.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER W. RAIMUND whose telephone number is (571) 270-7560. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7:00-4:30.
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 Orlando can be reached at (571) 270-5038. 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.
CHRISTOPHER W. RAIMUND
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1746
/CHRISTOPHER W RAIMUND/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1746