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 .
Terminal Disclaimer
The terminal disclaimer filed on 11/12/25 disclaiming the terminal portion of any patent granted on this application which would extend beyond the expiration date of any patent granted on Application Number 18502805 as well as Patent Number 12415291 has been reviewed and is accepted. The terminal disclaimer has been recorded.
Response to Amendment
The Examiner acknowledges the remarks and amendments filed on 4/20/26. Claims 5, 6, 12, and 19 have been canceled. Claims 1, 18, and 21 have been amended.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 4, 7, 8, 10, 11, 14, 15, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Chen CN_107234696_A (see machine English translation).
Regarding Claims 1, 7, Chen teaches 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). Chen also teaches coating the chopsticks with an adhesive prior to stacking (per example 6 on pg. 4) that is a food-safe and waterproof adhesive (melamine adhesive of section 2 of example 6 is implicitly food-safe and waterproof thereby meeting the limitation of claim 7). Chen further 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). Also, there is no explicitly mandate found within Chen that states that said chopsticks are cut; thus, they are presumably whole chopsticks. Finally, Chen discloses that the aforementioned wood product can be assembled into a multi-layered laminate (Page 6, Example 4; Page 7, 2nd paragraph), as is now being claimed in instant Claim 1.
Regarding Claims 3, 8, 18, Chen teaches heating the stacked chopsticks to a temperature from 110°C to 155°C (example 4 on pg. 6), falling within the claimed range, then pressing the stacked chopsticks, wherein the pressing creates from 6-7 MPa of force onto the stacked chopsticks (example 4 on pg. 6), falling within the claimed range. Chen discloses using recycled chopsticks (Abstract) which indicates they are used chopsticks. The remaining limitations have been taught by Chen under the rejection of instant, independent Claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 4, Chen teaches the heat and pressure is applied to the stacked chopsticks from 5 to 15 minutes (example 4 on pg. 6), falling within the claimed range.
Regarding claims 10 and 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 14, Chen teaches a rectangular shape wherein a width is approximately a length of the plurality of chopsticks (Figures).
Regarding Claim 15, the limitations of this have been taught under the rejection of instant, independent Claim 1 above.
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 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.
Claim(s) 9, 16, 17, 20, 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen CN_107234696_A (see machine English translation), as applied to Claims 1 and 18.
Regarding Claims 9, 20, and 21, 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). Also, there is no explicitly mandate found within Chen that states that said chopsticks are cut; thus, they are presumably whole chopsticks. Finally, Chen discloses that the aforementioned wood product can be assembled into a multi-layered laminate (Page 6, Example 4; Page 7, 2nd paragraph), as is now being claimed in instant Claim 21.
Regarding Claims 16 and 17, these are all a matter of design-choice known in the art. The remaining limitations have been taught under the rejection of instant, independent Claim 1 above.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen CN_107234696_A (see machine English translation), as applied to Claims 1 and 18, and in view of Fantoni EP_3778220_A1 (see machine English translation).
Regarding Claim 2, Chen teaches the chopsticks are used chopsticks (abstract).
Chen does not teach a step of shaking the used chopsticks on a table shaker prior to stacking.
However, a step of shaking used wood pieces on a table shaker prior to further processing for recycling is conventional in the prior art for sorting the pieces into different dimension classes, as taught for example by Fantoni (“The sieving can, for example, but not exclusively, be carried out by sieve rollers, vibrating tables, vibrating tables, air sorters or other gravimetric sieves that are suitable for sorting the wood fragments into different dimension classes” per paragraphs 0107, 0157, 0170, 0173 wherein a vibrating table is a type of table shaker).
In view of Fantoni’s teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Chen’s method to include a step of shaking the used chopsticks on a table shaker prior to stacking, as suggested by Fantoni’s teachings, to predictably sort the wood pieces into different dimension classes and ensure that only similarly sized chopsticks are stacked for forming into the wood product.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen CN_107234696_A (see machine English translation), as applied to Claims 1 and 18, and in view of Sun CN_104608210B (see machine English 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
Applicant's arguments filed 4/20/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicants state: “This differs from the present invention, where chopsticks are stacked in multiple layers and then pressed. Chen does not describe such a product.”
The Examiner respectfully submits that Chen discloses that its chopsticks are stacked in multiple layers and then pressed. Chen discloses that the aforementioned wood product can be assembled into a multi-layered laminate (Page 6, Example 4; Page 7, 2nd paragraph), as is now being claimed in instant Claim
Applicants state: “Further, the present invention uses whole chopsticks. In example 6, relied on by the Examiner, the chopsticks are cut and then used. This differs from the product of the present invention.”
The Examiner respectfully submits that there is no explicitly mandate found within Chen that states that said chopsticks are cut; thus, they are presumably whole chopsticks. Moreover, Applicants’ claims are drawn to a product, NOT to a process. As such, they cannot simultaneously argue against cutting, as is being done in the argument above, whilst claiming “cutting” in the independent claims.
Applicants state: “Finally, Chen described an unclear, at best, step S13, which uses the chopsticks from step S12 and rotates them, apparently to decompose the chopsticks into fiber bundles. In the present invention, the chopsticks are stacked and then pressed, without any intervening steps as in Chen.”
The Examiner respectfully submits that Chen teaches 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). Thus, the pressing is done after the stacking. Moreover, the argument above says “without any intervening steps”; however, this is not reflected in the wording of the independent claims. Additionally, the claims use open-ended “comprising” language.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 TAHSEEN KHAN whose telephone number is (571)270-1140. The examiner can normally be reached Mondays-Saturdays 08:00AM-10:00PM.
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 5712701547. 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.
/TAHSEEN KHAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1781 April 30, 2026
Prosecution Insights