DETAILED ACTION
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
Claims 12, 14-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 12/12/2025.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-11, 13 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 step c “two lateral boards” should be “the two lateral boards” or similar.
Claim 1 step d “the upper cover” should be “the at least one upper cover” or similar.
Claim 1 step e “the upper cover” should be “the at least one upper cover” or similar.
Examiner suggests going through the claims to make sure all antecedent basis issues similar to above issues be addressed.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “alternatively, … a plurality of lateral boards … a plurality of upper covers” and “at least two lateral boards” and “an upper cover” then calls throughout the claims “two lateral boards”, “the upper cover”. It is unclear which alternative is being claimed. It seems like the first embodiment is being claimed but later in the claims such as claim 2, 9, 10 seem to claim the second (alternative) embodiment. Examiner suggests rewriting the claim to a single embodiment.
Claim 2 recites the limitations “at least one set of lateral boards”, “two lateral boards”. It is unclear if they are referring to the lateral boards of claim 1 or if they are different lateral boards.
All dependent claims of above-mentioned claims inherit all of the limitations of the above-mentioned claims. Thus, the claims are likewise rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite.
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.
As best understood, claim(s) 1, 7, 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a) (1) as being anticipated by Lin (US 20110080030).
Regarding claim 1, Lin discloses an armrest production process (Fig. 1- 13), wherein an armrest comprises a plurality of armrest segments connected longitudinally; and each of the plurality of armrest segments is produced according to the following steps: step a: taking a woody first raw material ([0030] same material), and cutting the woody first raw material into at least two lateral boards (21) and an upper cover (22); and alternatively, taking the woody first raw material and a woody third raw material, cutting the woody first raw material into a plurality of lateral boards, and cutting the woody third raw material into a plurality of upper covers; step b: taking a woody second raw material ([0026] 10), and processing the woody second raw material into an inner core (bonding and cutting); step c: splicing two lateral boards onto two sides of the inner core (see Fig. 3-4), respectively; step d: splicing the upper cover onto an upper surface of the inner core and upper surfaces of the two lateral boards (see Fig. 3-4); and step e: processing outer edges of the two lateral boards and an outer edge of the upper cover into an outline of the armrest. (Fig. 4-7)
Regarding claim 7, Lin discloses the armrest production process according to claim 1, wherein step d further comprises: processing the upper surfaces and lower surfaces of the two lateral boards and the upper surface and a lower surface of the inner core, such that the upper surfaces of the two lateral boards are flush with the upper surface of the inner core and the lower surfaces of the two lateral boards are flush with the lower surface of the inner core (see Fig. 3-6: parts are inherently processed to be flushed as shown in Figs); and splicing the upper cover onto the upper surface of the inner core and the upper surfaces of the two lateral boards. (see Fig. 3-5)
Regarding claim 11, Lin discloses the armrest production process according to claim 1, further comprising: splicing a plurality of pieces of woody second raw materials into the inner core by bonding ([0006] “plurality of core sections is formed by bonding a plurality of waste pieces”), mortise and tenon connection, bolt connection or tooth connection, wherein the woody second raw material is a leftover material (“waste pieces”), a finger-jointed wood material or a laminated wood material.
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.
As best understood, claim 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin (US 20110080030).
Regarding claim 8, Lin discloses the armrest production process according to claim 7.
Lin is silent to further comprising: performing plane cutting along the upper surfaces of the two lateral boards and the upper surface of the inner core, with a height of 3 mm-5 mm cut away from an upper portion of the inner core and upper portions of the two lateral boards to allow the upper surfaces of the two lateral boards and the upper surface of the inner core to be flush; and performing plane cutting along the lower surfaces of the two lateral boards and the lower surface of the inner core, with a height of 3 mm-5 mm cut away from a lower portion of the inner core and lower portions of the two lateral boards to allow the lower surfaces of the two lateral boards and the lower surface of the inner core to be flush.
Examiner takes official notice that making surface flush by cutting/machining away the bonded surface is well-known method in the art at the time of filing. Since Lin Fig. 5 shows that the surfaces are flush and Lin is concerned about being aesthetically pleasing product (“aesthetic appearance”), Lin would have cut the bonded surface (top and bottom of the core and the lateral boards after splicing) to provide flush surface to allow better splicing with the top layer 22.
As best understood, claim 2, 4-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin (US 20110080030) in view of X (X).
Regarding claim 2, Lin discloses the armrest production process according to claim 1, further comprising: cutting the woody first raw material into at least one set of lateral boards (21 wood is inherently cut to the shape of 21), wherein the woody first raw material has a rectangular cross-section (at some point, the first raw material will be a rectangular cross-section since 21 is rectangular cross section), and each set of lateral boards comprises two lateral boards (see Fig. 3: at least two lateral boards comprise two lateral boards 21).
Lin fails to disclose setting an oblique line between the two lateral boards of each set as a first cutting line.
Zhong teaches a similar armrest production process comprising setting an oblique line between two lateral boards of each set as a first cutting line (see Fig. 5). Zhong further teaches that cutting obliquely as shown in Fig. 5 reduces the cost by 30% and reduce usage amount of expensive wood (“can effectively reduce the cost estimation can reduce wood dosage, of 30% also can further reduce the usage amount of expensive wood.”) Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the cutting line of the lateral boards of Lin to be oblique line as taught by Zhong in order to reduce usage amount of expensive wood and reduce the cost. (“ can effectively reduce the cost estimation can reduce wood dosage, of 30% also can further reduce the usage amount of expensive wood.”, Zhong Translation)
Regarding claim 4, modified Lin teaches the armrest production process according to claim 2, wherein a cross-section of each of the two lateral boards is a right trapezoid (as modified, it will be right trapezoid), wherein the right trapezoid is enclosed by a short base, a vertical leg, a long base, and an oblique leg (this is the shape of the right trapezoid); the two lateral boards are inverted such that the oblique legs of the two lateral boards coincide; and the first cutting line forms the oblique leg. (see Fig. 5 of Zhong)
Regarding claim 5, modified Lin teaches the armrest production process according to claim 4, wherein step c further comprises: when the two lateral boards (21) are spliced onto the two sides of the inner core (Fig. 3-4, Lin), respectively, connecting the vertical legs of the right trapezoids to the inner core, and positioning the oblique legs of the right trapezoids at the outer edges. (as modified by Zhong, see Fig. 5 of Zhong- this would be the only way to allow the shape of the armrest)
Regarding claim 6, modified Lin teaches the armrest production process according to claim 4. Lin discloses a length of the upper cover is L1 (see Fig. 5: W2 x 2 + W1), and a distance between edges of the two lateral boards is L2 (Fig. 3: edge of 21 in the front to the back in the direction of L1), wherein L1<L2. Modified Lin is silent to the specific dimensions such as wherein an angle formed by the oblique leg and the vertical leg of each of the two lateral boards is 10°-15°; and
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify an angle formed by the oblique leg and the vertical leg of each of the two lateral boards is 10°-15°, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
As best understood, claim 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin (US 20110080030) in view of Chung (US 7438360).
Regarding claim 9, Lin discloses the armrest production process according to claim 1, wherein a material grade of the woody first raw material is same as a material grade of the woody third raw material ([0030] same material).
Lin fails to disclose and the material grade of the woody first raw material is above a material grade of the woody second raw material.
Chung teaches a similar armrest production process wherein the material grade of the wood material that makes up the core and the outer layer i.e. lateral boards and top cover are different (“The armrest body 21 is made of a lower-quality wood material, extends in a longitudinal direction, and has a planar bottom surface 211, a planar top surface 212, and two lateral surfaces 213 interconnecting the bottom and top surfaces 211, 212. The top veneer layer 22 is made of a higher-quality wood material, and has a top surface 221, and a planar bottom surface 222 adhered to the top surface 212 of the armrest body 21”)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the woody second raw material that makes up the core of the armrest to be less in material grade than the woody first raw material that makes up the outer shell of the armrest as taught by Chung in order to reduce the production cost.
Regarding claim 10, modified Lin teaches the armrest production process according to claim 9.
Although modified Lin teaches that the woody first raw material is above a material grade of the woody second raw material, modified Lin is silent to wherein the material grade of the woody first raw material and the material grade of the woody third raw material are AA-grade, and the material grade of the woody second raw material is BB-grade.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have chosen a specific grade level of wood such as the woody first raw material and the material grade of the woody third raw material are AA-grade, and the material grade of the woody second raw material is BB-grade, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. See also Ballas Liquidating Co. v. Allied industries of Kansas, Inc. (DC Kans) 205 USPQ 331.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3 and 13 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter
None of the prior art discloses or render obvious “setting a straight line between the upper cover and the two lateral boards as a second cutting line; and cutting along the first cutting line and the second cutting line to obtain the upper cover and the two lateral boards, wherein the upper cover and the two lateral boards are separate.” In combination with the claim 2 limitation which claim 3 depends upon. Therefore, claim 13 which depends upon claim 3 is indicated allowable.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BOBBY YEONJIN KIM whose telephone number is (571)272-1866. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9 am - 5 pm.
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 Templeton can be reached on (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.
/BOBBY YEONJIN KIM/Examiner, Art Unit 3725