DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after 16 March 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . 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.
Drawings
Figures 27-28 should be designated by a legend such as –Prior Art– because only that which is old is illustrated (see ¶¶ 54-55 of the specification). See MPEP § 608.02(g).
Corrected drawings in compliance with 37 C.F.R. § 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office Action to avoid abandonment of the application. The replacement sheet(s) should be labeled “Replacement Sheet” in the page header (as per 37 C.F.R. § 1.84(c)) so as not to obstruct any portion of the drawing figures. 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.
Abstract Objections
The abstract is objected to because of the following informalities:
The applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “Disclosed is” (ln. 1), “According to the present disclosure” (ln. 2, 7), “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-6 and 9-16 are objected to because of the following informalities.
In re claim 1: the claim is worded awkwardly, thereby making a clear understanding difficult; the examiner suggests amending the claim to read, for example, as follows:
–A splicing method for making a laminated bamboo lumber (LBL), comprising the steps of: applying glue adhesive to end faces of bamboo materials to be spliced; and
joining the bamboo materials using tenon-mortise structures, wherein the tenon-mortise structures are at least one of a semicircle, a semi-ellipse, a V-shape and a U-shape; and
wherein, when the tenon-mortise structures are a single V-shape, an included angle between a plane at a top of the V-shape and the end face of the bamboo material being greater than 14°.–
In re claims 2-6 and 9-16: “structure is” should be –structures are–
Appropriate correction for the above list of issues is required.
Claim Interpretation
In light of the specification, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the phrase “included angle”, as used in claim 1, is being interpreted to be the mathematical definition of an included angle; namely, the angle formed by two sides of a polygon at the vertex where they meet.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 112(b)
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.
Claims 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. Any claims not directly addressed are only rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) for being dependent on a rejected base claim.
In re claim 1: the claim recites “A splicing method for seamless butted laminated bamboo lumber” in the preamble but then recites merely “bamboo materials” in the body of the claim, thereby making it unclear if the preamble should actually state “A splicing method for making seamless butted laminated bamboo lumber”. The latter is how the preamble will be interpreted for further examination purposes.
Also, the statement “seamless butted laminated bamboo lumber” renders the claim indefinite because anytime objects are joined by tenon-mortise structures, as required in the claim, there is inherently a seam at the joint. The examiner contends that it cannot even be said to be apparently seamless since seams are visible in the provided photographic figure illustrating the product (fig. 26 of the drawings).
In re claim 5: the claim is a grammatically improper and incoherent sentence that cannot be understood. What does “combined butting” mean? The claim is being interpreted as though combined butting is not in the claim.
In re claim 7: the claim recites “repress-forming” which implies there is press-forming previously involved. However, press-forming has not been recited in the claims. Thus, it is unclear if by “shaping” (ln. 2) press-forming is actually what is intended, but that is what the examiner is interpreting it to mean.
Appropriate correction for the above list of issues is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 102 that forms 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 1-6 and 8-14 and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Gao et al. (US 2010/0151175 A1).
In re claim 1, which is being examined as best understood: Gao discloses a splicing method for making seamless butted laminated bamboo lumber (claim 14), comprising the following steps of:
applying positions needing to be spliced on end faces of bamboo materials with glue adhesive (¶ 28, and claim 14), and
butting by tenon-mortise structures (fig. 4-5, 10-21; claim 14), wherein the tenon-mortise structure is a at least one of a semicircle, a semi-ellipse, a V-shape and a U-shape (fig. 1-9 and ¶ 26); and
wherein an included angle between a plane at a top of the V-shape and the end face of the bamboo material being greater than 14° when a single V-shape is adopted (this limitation is contingent on a single V-shape being selected, and it has not been selected the limitation does not impart patentability to the claim).
In re claim 2, which depends on claim 1: Gao discloses the tenon-mortise structure is a combination of any three of a semicircle, a semi-ellipse, a V-shape and a U-shape (see annotated fig. 6 of Gao below and ¶ 26; the claim does not require that it is only three).
PNG
media_image1.png
324
463
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In re claim 3, which depends on claim 2: Gao discloses the tenon-mortise structure is a combination of a semi-ellipse, a V-shape and a U-shape (fig. 6 above; the claim does not require that it is only these).
In re claim 4, which depends on claim 1: Gao discloses the tenon-mortise structure is a combination of any two of a semicircle, a semi-ellipse, a V-shape and a U-shape (fig. 6 above and ¶ 26; the claim does not require that it is only two).
In re claim 5, which depends on claim 4 and is being examined as best understood: Gao discloses the tenon-mortise structure is semicircular and V-shaped combined butting or semi-elliptical and V-shaped combined butting (fig. 6 above and ¶ 26; the claim does not require that it is only these).
In re claim 6, which depends on claim 1: Gao discloses the tenon-mortise structure is one of a U shape, a semicircle and a semi-ellipse (fig. 6 above and ¶ 26; the claim does not require that it is only one).
In re claim 8, which depends on claim 1: Gao discloses the bamboo material has a length, width, and a thickness greater than or equal to 220 mm, 5 mm, and 3 mm, respectively (¶ 30).
In re claims 9-16: each claim recites “the tenon-mortise structure is chamfered before splicing”. Note that claim 1 is directed to a splicing method. And, because the chamfering occurs prior to the splicing, it is not germane to the patentability of the splicing method. Consequently, the claims are not being given patentable weight.
In re claims 17-18: Gao discloses seamless butted LBL having tenon-mortise structures recited in claims 1 and 2 (fig. 6 and ¶¶ 28, 36). Note that the claims are product by process claims, and such claims are not limited by the steps in which the product was made but, instead, only by the particular features of the product itself. Therefore, the steps of claim 1 are not germane to the patentability of the claimed seamless butted LBL and, accordingly, are not being given patentable weight.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 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.
Claims 7 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Gao, in view of Knoll (US 2025/0121528 A1).
In re claim 7, which depends on claim 1 and is being examined as best understood: Gao discloses slicing (¶ 3, cutting), sanding, gluing (¶ 37 and claim 14, polishing and applying adhesive), press-forming, and repress-forming (¶¶ 18, 23 and claim 14).
Gao does not explicitly disclose performing four-sided planing.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Knoll teaches pre-planing and finish planing all four sides of a bamboo material to be used in a process of splicing bamboo lumber (¶¶ 39, 76 and abstract, fig. 11-29). Knoll teaches planing the sides to be perfectly parallel since doing so aids in stacking the bamboo material side by side to form a bamboo element of uniform thickness (¶ 77). Therefore, it would have been obvious to an ordinary artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Gao to include planing all four sides of the bamboo material to be perfectly parallel, thereby aiding in stacking the bamboo material for the forming of bamboo lumber having uniform thickness, as taught by Knoll.
In re claim 15, which depends on claim 7: the claim recites “the tenon-mortise structure is chamfered before splicing”. Note that claim 1 is directed to a splicing method. And, because the chamfering occurs prior to the splicing, it is not germane to the patentability of the splicing method. Consequently, the claim is not being given patentable weight.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jared O. Brown whose telephone number is 303-297-4445. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday: 8:00 - 5:00 (Mountain Time).
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 complete and submit the Automated Interview Request (AIR) form located at the following website: http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Christopher (“Chris”) 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.
For more information about Patent Center, visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center; and for information about filing in DOCX format, visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx. 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 THE USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JARED O BROWN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3725