The arguments and amendments submitted 03/27/2026 have been considered. In light of amendments made, all prior claim objections and USC § 112(b) rejections are hereby withdrawn. The merits of the claims, however, remain unpatentable as set forth below.
Claim Objections
The following claim(s) are objected to because of these informalities:
In claim 3, line 4, “applying pressure of the stacked chopsticks” should read “applying pressure onto the stacked chopsticks”.
In claim 12, lines 2-3, “a plane generally parallel” should read “a plane parallel”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claims 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 3 recites “shifting a temperature from 65°C to 200°". However, Applicant has not pointed out where this new feature is supported, nor does there appear to be a written description of this feature anywhere in the disclosure. Therefore, this limitation is unsupported new matter. Dependent claims fall herewith.
Claim 3 recites “shifting a force from 6 MPa to 35 MPa". However, Applicant has not pointed out where this new feature is supported, nor does there appear to be a written description of this feature anywhere in the disclosure. Therefore, this limitation is unsupported new matter. Dependent claims fall herewith.
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 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 and 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chen (CN 107234696A, with text citations to attached translation).
Regarding claim 1, Chen teaches a method for forming a wood product (abstract), comprising:
stacking chopsticks in a desired shape (symmetrical laminated assembling of step S32 on pg. 2 and claim 1; see also Figs. 1-5), the chopsticks being longitudinally aligned (as shown in Figs. 1-5 and per example 4 on pg. 6);
pressing the stacked chopsticks to hold the stacked chopsticks together as an unfinished wood product (pressing of step S32 on pg. 2 and claim 1; and as shown in Figs. 10-11) and
finishing the unfinished wood product into the wood product (finishing operations of step S33 on pg. 2 and claim 1);
wherein the stacked chopsticks are free from adhesive (in example 4 on pg. 4, corresponding to paragraphs 0062-0063 in the Chinese language reference, the assembling method, i.e. stacking, is not limited to chopsticks that have already been multi-layer laminated via dipping or impregnating with adhesive and hot pressing, per para. 0062 and the first passage in para. 0063, and thus includes embodiments wherein the stacked chopsticks are free from adhesive).
Regarding claim 10, Chen teaches treating the chopsticks prior to stacking (steps S11, S12, S13, and S31 on pg. 2 involve various treatments which occur prior to the stacking in step S32).
Regarding claim 11, Chen teaches the treating includes applying a stain or applying an oil to the chopsticks (e.g. oil paint spraying on pg. 7).
Regarding claim 12, Chen teaches aligning each end of the stacked chopsticks to provide the ends of the stacked chopsticks in a plane generally parallel to a direction of force applied by the pressing (e.g. as shown in Figs. 1-4 and 10).
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 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 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:
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 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen.
Regarding claims 8-9, Chen teaches drying the chopsticks prior to pressing to a moisture content less than about 12 percent prior to pressing (step S12 on pg. 2), thus encompassing the claimed range and rendering it prima facie obvious. A prior art range which encompasses, partially overlaps, or touches the claimed range is sufficient to establish a prima facie case of obviousness, in the absence of any unexpected results. See MPEP § 2144.05.I and In re Harris, 409 F.3d 1339, 74 USPQ2d 1951 (Fed. Cir. 2005); In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379, 1382-83 (Fed. Cir. 2003).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen, as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Sun (CN 104608210B, previously made of record, and with text citations to attached translation).
Regarding claim 13, Chen does not explicitly teach these features.
However, it is conventional and well known in the wood product arts to utilize wood strips laid longitudinally end-to-end at an end-to-end junction, wherein the end-to-end junction of a set of two wood strips in one layer of the stack is offset from the end-to-end junction of a second set of two wood strips in an adjacent layer and/or an adjacent row of the stack, as taught by Sun for example (referred to as stagger joint assembly with joints regularly distributed per items 5 and 9 on pg. 3 and as shown in Fig. 2).
Sun teaches this configuration provides “strong fastness, excellent performance and long use without cracking and good quality” for the wood product (abstract).
In view of Sun’s teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Chen’s method to utilize a configuration wherein the chopsticks are laid longitudinally end-to-end at an end-to-end junction, wherein the end-to-end junction of a set of two chopsticks in one layer of the stacked chopsticks is offset from the end-to-end junction of a second set of two chopsticks in an adjacent layer and/or an adjacent row of the stacked chopsticks, as suggested by Sun’s teachings, to predictably obtain the benefits taught by Sun and cited above.
Response to Arguments
Regarding claim 1, Applicant presents an argument contending that all embodiments of Chen include adhesive application prior to stacking and therefore the stacked chopsticks are not free from adhesive.
However, this argument is not persuasive because it fails to consider the alternative embodiments taught in Example 4 of Chen wherein the stacked chopsticks are free from adhesive, as cited and described in the rejection above.
Regarding claim 13, Applicant presents an argument contending that the combination of Chen and Sun would fail because it is insufficient to achieve structural integrity and would lack the necessary internal bond strength to function as a wood product.
However, this argument is not persuasive because claims 1 and 13 do not recite or require any specific value or range for structural integrity or internal bond strength, but instead only requires the recited arrangement of chopsticks, which is rendered obvious by Sun’s teachings, as cited in the rejection of claim 13 above.
Regarding presently amended claim 3, this claim in combination with the features recited in claim 1, was not found in a search of the prior art but is unpatentable (along with dependent claim 4) under USC 112(a) for the reasons given above.
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 JIM R SMITH whose telephone number is (303)297-4318. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri. 9-6 MST.
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, Phillip Tucker can be reached at 571-272-1095. 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.
/JRS/
Examiner
Art Unit 1745
/PHILIP C TUCKER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1745
Prosecution Insights