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
Claims 1-10 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected method, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on November 17, 2025.
Claim Objections
Claims 14, 17 and 21 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding each of claims 14 and 17, at line 2, the phrase "that is higher that a temperature" should be "that is higher than a temperature."
Regarding claim 21, at line two "an edge of two the pieces" should be "an edge of two pieces."
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 20, 21 and 24 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 20, at line 1, "the two pieces" lacks antecedent basis (should be "the at least two pieces").
Regarding claim 21, at line 1, "the two rows" lacks antecedent basis (should be "the at least two rows). Also, at line 2, "the pieces" lacks antecedent basis (should be "the at least two pieces").
Regarding claim 24, at line 2, "the two pieces" lacks antecedent basis (should be "the at least two pieces").
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)(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.
Claims 19-20 and 23-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Fields, US 3,856,600 (hereafter Fields).
Regarding claim 19, Fields discloses a piece of plywood (Fig.2; col. 1, lines 12-16; col. 1, lines 48-53; col. 4, lines 23-36) that includes
"a face sheet of having a first width, a first length and a grain oriented in a first direction" and "a back sheet having the first width, the first length and a grain oriented in the first direction" (Fields discloses the forming of sheets or veneers for the production of plywood panels typically 8 feet long, the sheets cut "with or lengthwise of the grain of the wood", some of which are full sheet size, i.e., slightly longer than a finished 4x8 foot plywood panels and some of which are less than a full sheet size, referred to as fractional size veneers (col. 2, lines 47-62), thus disclosing the full length sheets have a first length (over 8 feet before trimming) and a grain oriented in a first direction; panels according to fields include face and back sheets, preferably the disclosed full size sheets with lengthwise grain, with unitized fractional size veneers there-between (col. 4, lines 23-35));
and
"at least two pieces of stitched core material disposed in a single plane between the face sheet and the back sheet" (the unitized fractional size veneers taught in col. 4, lines 23-35 as being between face and back sheets are further described in col. 3, line 24 to col. 4, line 22 as being a plurality of sheets or veneers, connected side-by-side and produced by stitching or sewing "transversely of the grain of the wood of the fractional size veneers" (Fig. 2 and col. 3, lines 23-48)
"each of the at least two pieces of stitched core material having a grain oriented in a direction offset from the first direction, a length equal to less than half of the first length and a width equal to the first width" (with reference to Fig. 2, Fields discloses a grain "offset," i.e., perpendicular to the stitches S and thus also "offset," i.e., perpendicular to the grain of the full size veneers that are the face and back sheets (col. 3, lines 23-48); Fig. 2 thus illustrates the recited grain orientation and "a length equal to less than half of the first length and a width equal to the first width"; Fields further discloses the fractional size veneers being "suitable for cross-band material" in the panels (col. 4, lines 18-22), also understood to teach the recited grain oriented in a direction offset, i.e., perpendicular, from the first direction).
Regarding claim 20, Fig. 2 of Fields discloses the recited joined by at least two rows of stitching that run the length of the core material, illustrating three rows of stitching S joining a plurality of veneers (V-1 to V-N), with C1 to C2 illustrating an approximate cut line for a full size panel, thus illustrating a panel length (col. 4, lines 9-22).
Regarding claim 23, see Fig. 2 and the discussion thereof in the rejection of claim 20, Fields teaching the recited "ninety degrees."
Regarding claim 24, Fields discloses the application of adhesive on each veneer at col. 4, lines 23-35, necessarily disclosing the recited "adhesive disposed between the face sheet and the two pieces of stitched core material and between the back sheet and the two pieces of stitched core 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.
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 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fields in view of Fischer et al., US 2013/0065013 (hereafter Fischer).
Regarding claim 11, Fields teaches a method for manufacturing plywood having stitched core material (col. 3, line 23 to col. 4, line 36). The method of Fields includes:
"receiving a face sheet, the face sheet having a grain oriented in a first direction" (see the rejection of claim 19, the discussion of which is incorporated herein, that teaches the preparation of face and backing sheets that are full size (4 feet by 8 feet sheets) that are cut from a green log with or lengthwise of the grain of wood, i.e., a first direction (col. 2, lines 47-62 and col. 4, lines 23-36));
"applying a first layer of adhesive to the face sheet" (Fields teaches applying adhesive at an applying apparatus 26 onto each of the veneers, both full size sheets, i.e., face and back sheets, as well as unitized fractional size veneers (Fig. 1; col. 4, lines 23-35);
"placing one or more pieces of stitched core material on the first layer of adhesive, the one or more pieces of stitched core material having a grain oriented in a direction offset . . . from the first direction" (Fields teaches panel layup at station 28 (Fig. 1 and col. 4, lines 9-35) that includes using unitized fractional size veneers, i.e., smaller veneer pieces, attached edge-to-edge using stitching, between face and back sheets, necessarily teaching the stitched pieces are placed on a face sheet; as discussed in the rejection of claim 19, with reference to Fig. 2, the stitches S are across the wood grain (col. 4, lines 9-22), thus also teaching the wood grain of the stitched pieces is at an angle to, i.e., a direction offset of the grain direction, i.e., first direction of the face sheet when used a cross-band material (col. 4, lines 18-22));
"applying a second layer of adhesive to the one or more pieces of stitched core material" (Fields teaches applying adhesive at an applying apparatus 26 onto each of the veneers, both full size sheets, i.e., face and back sheets, as well as unitized fractional size veneers, i.e., stitched core material (Fig. 1; col. 4, lines 23-35), thus teaching a second layer of adhesive that is applied to the stitched pieces;
"placing a back sheet on the second layer of adhesive" (see the rejection of claim 19 that discusses the Fields teaching of the preparation of face and backing sheets that are full size (4 feet by 8 feet sheets) that are cut from a green log with or lengthwise of the grain of wood, i.e., a first direction (col. 2, lines 47-62 and col. 4, lines 23-36) and that the panel lay-up includes face and back sheets (col. 4, lines 9-35), necessarily teaching a step of placing the back sheet on the second layer of adhesive; and
"pressing the face sheet, the one or more pieces of stitched core material, and the back sheet in a heated press" (Fields teaches that from the lay-up apparatus, the panels are moved to a veneer press where they are pressed and the adhesive set (col. 4, lines 29-31), the phrase "and the adhesive set" is understood to teach/suggest the predictable application of heat during pressing, rendering obvious the recited use of a heated press (see, for example, Fischer, discussed below, at paras [0048]-[0050] for evidentiary support that it is common and predictable in the art of making panels from wood veneer to set an adhesive used for bonding wood veneers with both heat and pressure (para [0050]); it has been held that the combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results. MPEP 2141 discussing KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-416, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 (2007)).
Fields is silent as to the stitched core material being at an orientation "offset at an acute angle from the first direction." Although Fields teaches the unitized fractional size veneers, i.e., stitched core material, is suitable for "cross-band material" (col. 4, lines 18-22), such is understood to teach an approximate 90 degree orientation between sheets, but silent as to something less than 90 degrees, i.e., an acute angle.
Fischer teaches a multi-layer veneer moulding (Abstract) wherein wood veneers are layered in such a way to result in a panel wherein the grain of at least one of the wood veneers deviates from the grain of at least one or the other wood veneers by 45° to 90° (Abstract; paras [0007]-[0012]), i.e., at an acute angle. Preferably, veneer layers with only two different grains are used in alternate arrangement (para [0065]). Fischer teaches coating of wood layers with an adhesive, followed by the application of pressure and/or heat to create the moulding (paras [0046]-[0050]). Fischer also teaches diagonally or obliquely cutting wood veneer pieces that are then joined at end edges to create an individual wood veneer with a desired diagonally running grain (para [0059]). Fischer describes its resulting multi-layer mouldings made of veneer boards as having improved properties, particularly with regard to shear modulus and bending strength (para [0004]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing of the claims of the invention to modify the method of Fields to apply a stitched core material of Fields onto a face sheet such that the grain of the stitched core material is oriented at an acute angle with respect to the grain direction of the face sheet, in view of the Fischer teaching of the advantages of preparing a veneer laminate structure wherein the grain of at least one wood veneer deviates from the grain of an adjacent veneer by 45° to 90°, such advantages including improved shear modulus and bending strength of the resulting structure.
Claims 12-14 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fields/Fischer as applied to claim 11 and further in view of Fields, 3,919,954 (hereafter Fields II), made of record by Applicant.
Regarding claim 12, Fields teaches the method steps of:
creating a continuous sheet of green core veneers by stitching a plurality of pieces of green core veneers together by an automated core veneer stitcher (col. 3, line 24 to col. 4, line 8);
cutting the continuous sheet of green core veneers into the one or more pieces of stitched core material that each have a fixed width (Fig. 2; ; and col. 3, lines 44-48 teaching clipping into "full size sheets," i.e., core material having a fixed width the same as the face and back sheets); and
drying the one or more pieces of stitched core material (col. 3, lines 44-48).
As to the claim 12 steps of receiving a plurality of pieces of green core veneers on a conveyor and crowding the plurality of pieces of green core veneers by an automated core veneer crowder disposed on the conveyor, Fields teaches peeling veneer from a green log using a veneer lathe, explaining that typically more than 50% of the veneer is cut into pieces that are less than a full sheet, such pieces described as fractional size veneers (col. 2, lines 48-62). Fields then describes a step of connecting fractional size veneers in side-by-side relation into a single sheet by stitching (col. 3, lines 24-48). Thus Fields is silent as to the intermediate steps of receiving core veneer pieces on a conveyor and then crowding the pieces.
Fields II is directed to an apparatus and method for making plywood panel core sheets from pieces of green veneer (Abstract and col. 3, lines 1-45). The method of Fields II includes the steps of:
receiving a plurality of pieces of green core veneers on a conveyor 42 (the drawing and col. 3, lines 3-29); and
crowding the plurality of pieces of green core veneers by an automated core veneer crowder 44 disposed on the conveyor that moves the veneers into and edge-to-edge position (the drawing and col. 3, lines 25-33).
Like Fields, Fields II describes utilizing a "stitcher" 46 where the crowded veneers are stitched by stitching 47 into a continuous green veneer sheet or ribbon 50, followed by cutting and drying (col. 3, lines 33-45).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing of the claims of the invention to modify the method of Fields/Fischer to further include the intermediate steps of conveying and crowding as taught by Fields II as predictable and suitable for arranging the core pieces of Fields/Fisher into an orientation suitable for stitching. It has been held that the combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results. MPEP 2141 discussing KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-416, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 (2007).
Regarding claim 13, Fields teaches that a plurality of rows of stitches are preferred and are normally produced simultaneously (col. 3, lines 49-57), thus necessarily requiring the use of a plurality of stitching devices having needles configured to puncture holes into the veneers and pass a thread through the holes (see Fig. 2 illustrating stitches S and col. 4, lines 9-22). See also Fields II "stitcher" 46 that is illustrated in the drawing of Fields II as simultaneously stitching 3 lines of stitches.
Regarding claim 14, Fields teaches using a "Dacron thread" to stitch the veneer pieces (col. 3, lines 41-45). Dacron is understood to be a polyethylene terephthalate (PET) material having an ignition temperature higher than a wood drying temperature.
Regarding claim 18, it is noted that the claim does not recite a method step, but rather a configuration of a core stitcher. With reference to Fig. 2 of Fields that illustrates three spaced lines of stitching S, two of which are near and outer edge of the plurality of veneers (V-1 to V-N) and one line of stitching located between the outer two lines of stitching, such central line of stitching that may be described with reference to a center of the plurality of pieces of green core veneers. These three lines of stitching that Fields describes as preferably being produced simultaneously (col. 3, lines 49-58), would necessarily be made by a stitcher configured to stitch as recited in the claim, the locations of either of the outer lines of stitching being different than the location of the central line of stitching.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fields/Fischer/Fields II as applied to claim 13 and further in view of Brookhyser, US 4,658,684 (hereafter Brookhyser).
Regarding claim 15, Fields/Fisher/Fields II is silent regarding the method being performed by an apparatus wherein the cutting is performed by a cutting device that is mounted to a carriage that travels at the same rate as the conveyor that conveys the plurality of pieces of green core veneers.
Brookhyser teaches a clipper, i.e., cutting device, for wood veneer that ensures that the plywood veneer being cut is in alignment and the cut achieves a square edge on the material (Abstract and Figs. 1-4). The clipper includes a pair of guillotine cutting blade that advance simultaneously vertically and horizontally into contact with the veneer (Abstract). Such is accomplished by a crankshaft, i.e., a carriage, upon which the blade is mounted (Abstract). The crankshaft, i.e., carriage, causes the knives to travel in an elliptical path, understood as meeting the claim requirement of traveling at the same rate as the conveyor during the moment when the cutting action occurs (col. 3, line 40 to col. 4, line 11). Also, the clipper includes a single anvil cylinder rotating in synchronization with the sheet speed (Abstract). Thus, the veneer is cut as it is moving and kept in transverse alignment, exiting the clipper aligned and in register with the conveyors up and downstream of the clipper (Abstract).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing of the claims of the invention to modify the method of Fields/Fischer/Fields II to perform the cutting step using the clipper described in Brookhyser for the advantage taught in Brookhyser of cutting a veneer in a manner that it remains aligned and in register with conveyors, the clipper achieving a desirable square edged cut.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fields/Fischer/Fields II as applied to claim 13 and further in view of Dubuc, US 4,546,806 (hereafter Dubuc).
Regarding claim 16, Fields/Fischer/Fields II is silent as to a method that further includes applying tape to at least one end of the stitched continuous sheet of green core veneers to secure the thread against unravelling.
Dubuc teaches that it is known to apply a strip of tape onto a sheet of veneer close to each of its edges (Abstract) to protect the veneer from breaking, tearing or cracking during processing, including trimming and handling after trimming (col. 1, line 50 to col. 2, line 17).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing of the claims of the invention to modify the method of Fields/Fisher/Fields II to further include a step of applying tape to at least one end the green core veneer, i.e., close to its edge, as taught by Dubuc, for the advantage taught in Dubuc of protecting against breaking, tearing or cracking during any further step, including trimming and handling, such a tape application would necessarily also advantageously secure the stitching thread of the green core material against unravelling.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fields/Fischer/Fields II/Dubuc as applied to claim 16 and further in view of Weidner, US 2,474,292 (hereafter Weidner).
Regarding claim 17, Fields/Fisher/Fields II/Dubuc is silent as to using tape made of a material that has an ignition temperature that is higher that a temperature of an oven used to dry the plurality of sheets of core material.
Weidner teaches an adhesive tape for use in laminating wood sheets, in particular veneered articles and plywood (col. 1, lines 1-5; Examples at col. 2, line 34 to col. 3, line 30). The adhesive tape may be pressure-sensitive (col. 3, lines 66 to col. 4, line 16). The tape advantageously includes a flexible fibrous backing and a film forming material that imparts internal strength (col. 1, lines 50-54). Under temperatures encountered in bonding sheets of wood into a plywood board, the resinous material of the adhesive tape is cured or set and thereby rendered into a water resistant part of the plywood structure (col. 2, lines 1-10). Such a tape would necessarily have an ignition temperature higher than a temperature of an oven used to dry green sheets of core material.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing of the claims of the invention to modify the method of Fields/Fisher/Fields II/Dubuc to utilize an adhesive tape according to Weidner for the advantages taught in Weidner, including a tape that does not require removal prior to a plywood laminate bonding step and advantageously becomes a water resistant part of the plywood structure.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fields as applied to claim 20 and further in view of the teachings of Fields.
Regarding claim 21, Fields is silent as to the recitation of "wherein each of the two rows of continuous stitching are disposed no more than two inches from an edge of two the pieces of stitched core material." However, as discussed in the rejection of claim 20, Fields at Fig. 2 illustrates three rows of stitching S joining a plurality of veneers (V-1 to V-N) (col. 4, lines 9-22). Fig. 2 illustrates the stitches being spaced from the edges of the core material. The recitation of "no more than two inches" is considered arbitrary and thus an obvious design choice. Applicant must show that this requirement is critical. In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fields as applied to claim 20 and further in view of Dubuc.
Regarding claim 22, Fields is silent as to the piece of plywood further comprising a tape. The recitation of the purpose for the inclusion of the tape does not further limit this product claim.
Dubuc teaches that it is known to apply a strip of tape onto a sheet of veneer close to each of its edges (Abstract) to protect the veneer from breaking, tearing or cracking during processing, including trimming and handling after trimming (col. 1, line 50 to col. 2, line 17).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing of the claims of the invention to modify the piece of plywood according to Fields to further include a tape located on at least one end the green core veneer, i.e., close to its edge, as taught by Dubuc, for the advantage taught in Dubuc of protecting against breaking, tearing or cracking during any further step, including trimming and handling, such a tape application would necessarily also advantageously secure the stitching thread of the green core material against unravelling.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CYNTHIA L SCHALLER whose telephone number is (408)918-7619. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8 - 4:30.
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, Michael Orlando can be reached at 571-270-5038. 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.
/CYNTHIA L SCHALLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1746