Detailed Office Action
Applicant’s amendments and arguments dated 4/30/2026 have been entered and fully considered. Claim 1 is amended. Claims 2-3 are cancelled. Claims 17-34 are withdrawn from examination. Claims 1 and 4-34 remain pending.
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 .
Response to Amendments and Arguments
Applicant’s amendments have overcome claim 1 objections previously set forth in the non-final office action of 2/6/2026. These objections are withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments that previous claims 2-3 limitations (now amended into claim 1) are not obvious in view of the primary art of LUNDBLAD are persuasive. The obviousness rejections over LUNDBLAD are withdrawn. However, after further search and consideration, a new 35 USC 103 rejection is made in this office action. As the result, this office action is a second non-final rejection.
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 (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 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 4-6 and 8-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LUNDBLAD (US-2017/0190156), hereinafter LUNDBLAD, in view of WILLIAMSON (US-2005/0257888), hereinafter WILLIAMSON. Note that the italicized text below are the instant claims.
Regarding claim 1, LUNDBLAD discloses A method to produce a veneered panel {[abstract], [FIG. 2] 10 is considered the panel}, comprising:
providing a first wood veneer layer, arranging at least one second wood veneer layer with a first binder layer comprising a first binder and starch, the first binder layer being applied intermediate the first wood veneer layer and said at least one second wood veneer layer {[0161] note more than one veneer layer, thus two wood veneer layers, note sub-layer 2 is the first binder layer that is between the two veneer layers, [0019] note veneer is wood, [0143]-[0144] note sub-layer 2 has a binder, [0148] note the sublayer has starch},
pressing said at least one second wood veneer layer to the first wood veneer layer to form a veneer element in a first pressing step {[0161] note pressing the two veneer layers that creates the veneer element, interpreted as the first pressing step},
applying the veneer element on a core with a second binder layer comprising a second binder applied between the core and the veneer element, pressing the veneer element and the core together in a second pressing step {[0161] note applying to core and pressing that is interpreted as the second pressing step, note the sub-layer also exists between the core and the veneer element, thus the second binder},
wherein, in the second pressing step, the first binder and the second binder are cured to adhere the veneer element to the core to form a veneered panel {[0051] note curing}.
LUNDBLAD, however, is silent on the two pressing steps being separate and in sequence and that the curing occurs during the second pressing step which is the remaining limitations of claim 1 reciting “wherein, in the first pressing step, said at least one second wood veneer layer is adhered to the first wood veneer layer at least by the starch of the first binder layer, wherein, after the first pressing step, the first binder is substantially uncured”.
In the same filed of endeavor that is related to laminated veneer, WILLIAMSON discloses wherein, in the first pressing step, said at least one second wood veneer layer is adhered to the first wood veneer layer at least by the starch of the first binder layer, wherein, after the first pressing step, the first binder is substantially uncured {[0002] note that curing occurs in the second stage after pre-pressing stage which is the first stage, also note that binder of LUNDBLAD has starch, thus it behaves the same as the recited limitation}.
At the effective filing date of the instant invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have incorporated the teaching of WILLIAMSON, in the method of LUNDBLAD and have performed the pressing in two separate steps, wherein the curing does not occur in the first stage and it occurs in the second stage.
As disclosed by WILLIAMSON, the advantage of this two-stage pressing is to maximize output and facilitate handling of the initial laminate without shifting or separation of the veneers prior to the final stage of hot pressing {[0002]}.
Regarding claim 4 limitation of “wherein pressure applied in the first pressing step is less than 15 bar” and claim 5 limitation of “wherein pressure applied in the second pressing step exceeds 30 bar”, modified LUNDBLAD, however, is silent on these numerical values. However, LUNDBLAD discloses that the design of the veneer element can be controlled by changing the pressure during the pressing steps {[0176]-[0177]}. As such, LUNDBLAD recognizes the pressure during the pressing steps as a result effective variable affecting the design of the veneer through permeation.
It is well established that determination of optimum values of result-effective variables (in this case the effect of pressing pressure on the final design) is within the skill of one practicing in the art {see MPEP 2144.05 (ll)(B)}. At the effective filing date of the instant invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have optimized the pressing pressure during the two steps which is a result-effective variable through routine experimentation to have determined the pressure necessary to achieve the desired design that in certain circumstance will lead to the levels that are claimed.
Regarding claim 6 limitation of “wherein starch is applied in an amount of 1-10 g/m2”, modified LUNDBLAD, however, is silent on this numerical value. However, LUNDBLAD discloses that the design of the veneer element can be controlled by the fluid pressure that is a function of binder concentration and formulation {[0073]/[0075]}. The amount of starch in the binder determines the formulation and the concentration of the binder. As such, LUNDBLAD recognizes the amount of starch as a result effective variable affecting the design of the veneer through permeation and control of fluid pressure.
It is well established that determination of optimum values of result-effective variables (in this case the effect of the amount of starch on the final design) is within the skill of one practicing in the art {see MPEP 2144.05 (ll)(B)}. At the effective filing date of the instant invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have optimized the amount of starch which is a result-effective variable through routine experimentation to have determined the amount necessary to achieve the desired design that in certain circumstance will lead to the levels that are claimed.
Regarding claim 8 limitation of “wherein said at least one second wood veneer layer has a porosity exceeding 50% as measured using mercury intrusion porosimetry”, modified LUNDBLAD, however, is silent on this numerical value. However, LUNDBLAD discloses that the design of the veneer element can be controlled by the holes or pores in the veneer {[0083]} and that the veneer is a porous structure including pores in which the sub-layer or binder may permeate {[0085]}. As such, LUNDBLAD recognizes the extent of the porosity of the veneer as a result effective variable affecting the design of the veneer through permeation in the pores. Note that LUNDBLAD discloses methods to increase the porosity {[0062]}.
It is well established that determination of optimum values of result-effective variables (in this case the effect of porosity on the final design) is within the skill of one practicing in the art {see MPEP 2144.05 (ll)(B)}. At the effective filing date of the instant invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have optimized the porosity of the veneer which is a result-effective variable through routine experimentation to have determined the needed porosity to achieve the desired design that in certain circumstance will lead to the levels that are claimed.
Regarding claim 9 limitation of “wherein said at least one second wood veneer layer has a thickness of less than of 0.6 mm”, claim 10 limitation of “wherein said at least one second wood veneer layer has a thickness of less than of 0.4 mm”, and claim 12 limitation of “wherein the first wood veneer layer has a thickness of less than 1 mm”, modified LUNDBLAD, however, is silent on these numerical values. However, LUNDBLAD discloses that the design of the veneer element can be controlled by controlling permeation thru controlling the thickness of the veneer layer {[0084]}. As such, LUNDBLAD recognizes the thickness of the veneer layer as a result effective variable affecting the design of the veneer through permeation.
It is well established that determination of optimum values of result-effective variables (in this case the effect of veneer thickness on the final design) is within the skill of one practicing in the art {see MPEP 2144.05 (ll)(B)}. At the effective filing date of the instant invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have optimized the veneer thickness which is a result-effective variable through routine experimentation to have determined the thickness necessary to achieve the desired design that in certain circumstance will lead to the levels that are claimed.
Regarding claims 11 and 13, modified LUNDBLAD discloses wherein said at least one second wood veneer layer is a sliced wood veneer (claim 11), wherein the first wood veneer layer is a rotary cut wood veneer {[0088] note cut veneer is sliced veneer}.
Regarding claims 14-15, modified LUNDBLAD discloses wherein a plurality of second wood veneer layers is applied adjacent each other on the first wood veneer layer (claim 14), wherein said plurality of second wood veneer layers are applied in a pattern on the first wood veneer layer (claim 15) {[0100], [0158]}.
Regarding claim 16, modified LUNDBLAD discloses further comprising brushing said at least one second wood veneer layer after being adhered to the first wood veneer layer {[0059], [0061]-[0062]}.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LUNDBLAD and WILLIAMSON as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of YADAMA (US-2022/0371219), hereinafter YADAMA.
Regarding claim 7, combination of LUNDBLAD and WILLIAMSON discloses all the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. This combination, however, is silent on the second wood veneer being a thermo-treated wood.
In the same field of endeavor that is related to modified wood for construction, YADAMA discloses wherein said at least one second wood veneer layer comprises a thermo-treated wood veneer {[0057]}.
At the effective filing date of the instant invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have incorporated the teachings of YAMADA in the combination method of LUNDBLAD and WILLIAMSON and have used a thermally treated wood veneer. As disclosed by YAMADA, the advantage of this treatment is that the veneer becomes more resistant to decay and moisture {[0057]}.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to S. BEHROOZ GHORISHI whose telephone number is (571)272-1373. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-(alt Fri) 7:30-5:00.
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, Abbas Rashid can be reached at 571-270-7457. 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.
/S. BEHROOZ GHORISHI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1748
Prosecution Insights