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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group II in the reply filed on January 20, 2026 is acknowledged.
The inventions of Groups I and III, original claims 1-7 and 14-18 have been canceled without traverse. But in addition, applicant also canceled original claims 8-13 of the elected Group II, directed to the elected treatment apparatus invention, and adds new claims 19-32 directed to the same elected invention.
An action on the merits of the new claims 19-32 follows,
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
The listing of references in the specification (see pages 3-4) is not a proper information disclosure statement. 37 CFR 1.98(b) requires a list of all patents, publications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office, and MPEP § 609.04(a) states, "the list may not be incorporated into the specification but must be submitted in a separate paper." Therefore, unless the references have been cited by the examiner on form PTO-892, they have not been considered.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in Hungary on April 15, 2021. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the Hungarian Application No. P2100153 as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the drawing of “a press device (claim 20, line 1)” and “a perforated plate or a grating (claim 27)” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
Therefore, the abstract is objected to because it has multiple paragraphs, and it includes legal phrases, “comprising (line 1)” and “comprises (line 5)”.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term "means" or "step" or a term used as a substitute for "means" that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term "means" or "step" or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word "for" (e.g., "means for") or another linking word or phrase, such as "configured to" or "so that"; and
(C) the term "means" or "step" or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word "means" (or "step") in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word "means" (or "step") in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
If claim limitations in this application that use the word "means" (or "step"), they are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, if claim limitations in this application that do not use the word "means" (or "step"), they are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
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 19-20 and 22-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sato et al. (hereinafter “Sato”) (JP H054203 A).
Regarding claim 19, Sato discloses a treatment apparatus for treating wood material (see “wooden” in the abstract), comprising: (a) a hermetically sealable reaction space (fig. 1, a space inside the container (1)) configured to receive wood material (a) (fig. 1) to be treated; and (b) at least one heating panel (14a-c) disposed in the reaction space (fig. 1).
Regarding claim 20, the treatment apparatus of claim 19, further comprising a press device (11-13) configured to press together the wood material (a) arranged in the reaction space and the at least one heating panel (fig. 1) (see para 39, lines 22-30 of the English translation).
Regarding claim 22, the treatment apparatus of claim 19, further comprising a heating member (6 or 14) configured to heat the reaction space (fig. 1), wherein the heating member (6 or 14) is arranged along a wall.
- For the heating member 6, it is arranged along a wall of a carriage (2) in fig. 1), which is located inside the container (1) and within the reaction space (fig. 1)
-For the heating member 14, a bottom heating member 14c is arranged along a bottom wall of the container (1) and within the reaction space (fig. 1).
Regarding claim 23, the treatment apparatus of claim 22, wherein the heating member (6) is arranged on a floor (5) of the reaction space (fig. 1).
Regarding claim 24, the treatment apparatus of claim 22, wherein the heating member (14c) comprises the at least one heating panel (14a-c) (fig. 1).
Claims 19-20 and 22-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sundholm et al. (hereinafter “Sundholm”) (WO 2005/049291 A1).
Regarding claim 19, Sundholm discloses a treatment apparatus for treating wood material (see “wood or wood products” in abstract), comprising:
(a) a hermetically sealable reaction space (see D in fig. 3) configured to receive wood material (1) to be treated; and
(b) at least one heating panel (2) disposed in the reaction space (fig. 1 and page 6, lines 18-19).
Regarding claim 20, the treatment apparatus of claim 19, further comprising a press device (4)) configured to press together the wood material 1a) arranged in the reaction space and the at least one heating panel (2) (see page 6, lines 18-19).
Regarding claim 22, the treatment apparatus of claim 19, further comprising a heating member (2) configured to heat the reaction space (fig. 2), wherein the heating member (2) is arranged along a wall (see fig. 2, which shows a bottom heating member (2) is arranged along a top wall of a base (7) of the reaction space).
Regarding claim 23, the treatment apparatus of claim 22, wherein the heating member (2) is arranged on a floor (7) of the reaction space (fig. 2).
Regarding claim 24, the treatment apparatus of claim 22, wherein the heating member (2) comprises the at least one heating panel (2) (fig. 2).
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.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sato in view of Bodrov (EP 1696193 A1).
Regarding claim 21, the treatment apparatus of claim 19, Sato discloses the reaction space is surrounded by chamber walls of the container (1). Sato does not expressly disclose the chamber walls are made of a thermal insulation member.
Bodrov can be applied to teach a treatment apparatus for wood material comprising a hermetically sealable reaction space (2), wherein in chamber walls of the reaction space are made of a thermal insulation member (see “the chamber walls can be made of heat-insulating material” on page 5, last paragraph of the English translation).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have made chamber wall of the reaction space of Sato, with a thermal insulation member, as taught by Bodrov, in order to reduce heat transfer between the inside and outside of the chamber, and help maintaining a stable internal environment and improving energy efficiency.
Claims 25-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sundholm in view of Li (CN 110861342 A).
Regrading claim 25, the treatment apparatus of claim 19, Sundholm discloses the at least one heating panel using a heating medium for drying the wood material (see page 7, lines12-15). Sundholm does not expressly disclose wherein the at least one heating panel is the type comprises first and second boundary members arranged parallel to each other, and a heating wire arranged between the first and second boundary members.
Li can be applied to teach a drying press comprising a electrical heating system including a plurality of heating panels (2), each of the heating panels comprising first and second boundary members (see the top and bottom lines of element 2 in fig. 1) arranged parallel to each other (fig. 1), and a heating wire (4) arranged between the first and second boundary members (fig. 1), wherein at least one of the first and second boundary members comprises a perforated plate (5) or a grating.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the heating system of Sundholm to an electrical heating system that includes a type of heating panel comprising first and second boundary members arranged parallel to each other, and a heating wire arranged between the first and second boundary members, as taught by Li, for energy efficiency and safety issue (It is noted that electric heating elements convert nearly all electric energy into heat, so they are typically more energy efficient than fluid heating systems, which loose heat to the surrounding environment and require continuous circulation to maintain temperature. Also wired heater plates avoid the risks of associated with hot fluids (such as spills, leaks or burns)).
Regarding claim 26, the treatment apparatus of claim 25, modify Sundholm discloses the at least one heating panel for treating wood material as set forth above, and thus a treatment composition arranged between the first and second boundary members and surrounding the heating wire is a solidified “wood” treatment composition, and the first and second boundary members are configured to allow the solidified wood treatment composition to contact the wood material to be treated. (It is noted that the claim does not define the material of the composition).
Regarding claim 27, the treatment apparatus of claim 26, modified Sundholm discloses wherein at least one of the first and second boundary members comprises a perforated plate or a grating (see a perforated element 5 of Li).
Regarding claim 28, the treatment apparatus of claim 26, modified Sundholm discloses wherein the panel is a heating panel including the first and second boundary members as set forth above, and thus one of the first and second boundary members is made of a heat conducting material in order to dry the wood material.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 29-32 are 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.
Regarding claim 29, the claim would be allowable because the prior art of record, considered alone or combination, neither anticipated nor renders obvious “wherein the solidified wood treatment composition comprises a basic material selected from the group consisting of LiOH, NaOH, KOH, RbOH, CsOH, Mg(OH)2, Ca(OH)2, Sr(OH)2, Ba(OH)2, Na2S, and tetramethylammonium hydroxide”, in combination with the rest of the claimed limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding claim 30, the claim would be allowable because the prior art of record, considered alone or combination, neither anticipated nor renders obvious “wherein the solidified wood treatment composition comprises (i) a heat conducting and heat retaining material and (ii) at least 10 wt% of a binder”, in combination with the rest of the claimed limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 31-32 would be allowable in virtue of their dependence upon claim 30.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The prior art listed on the attached PTO 892 are cited to show various treatment apparatuses for wood.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JIMMY T NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-4520. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:30am-5pm.
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, CHRISTOPHER L TEMPLETON can be reached at 571-270-1477. 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.
JIMMY T. NGUYEN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3725
/JIMMY T NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3725
Prosecution Insights