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
Claim 1-7 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Group, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 3/26/2026.
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 8-10 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 8-10 recite the limitation “wrapping a leaf of wood” (or “raw material”). Based on the specification, the “leaf of wood” is a raw material that requires cutting in thin slices to be made a “sheet” of the leaf of wood to be wrapped/ wound to be made a straw. (see pg. 3 of the specification) The claims are written unclear since it seems like the raw material (leaf of wood) is being wrapped without first being sliced into a thin sheet. Also, the claim both describes “wrapping” and “winding process” it is unclear what the difference is based on the specification.
Claim 9-10 recites the limitation “The process”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The limitation “A process” has not been previously cited. Are the claims 9-10 intended to be dependent upon claim 8?
Claim 9 recites the limitation “a corner… remains on which the force of a cutting angle of a knife will act and press and hold the shape of the straw”. It is unclear what this means. What is the relationship between the corner and the cutting angle of the knife and holding the shape of the straw?
Claim 10 recites the limitation “wrapping a leaf of wood to form a straw to obtain a shape of a trapezoid”. How does wrapping a leaf of wood form a straw and obtain a shape of a trapezoid? It seems like many steps are skipped.
Claim 10 recites the limitation “a force of a teeth” and “a U -shaped tooth”. It is unclear if the teeth and the tooth are the same feature or not.
Claim 10 recites the limitation “in which a sheet for the straw is obtained”. It is unclear how the sheet for the straw is obtained.
The claims are generally narrative and indefinite, failing to conform with current U.S. practice. They appear to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document and are replete with grammatical and idiomatic errors. Applicant is required to review all of the claims for compliance with 35 U.S.C. 112 so as to facilitate a clear understanding of the claimed invention and proper applicant of the prior art.
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, 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park (KR 20180069759).
Regarding claim 8, Park discloses a process for producing a wooden straws (Title) comprising the steps of: wrapping a leaf of wood (Fig. 2) to form a straw having a trapezoid shape (rectangle is trapezoid), wherein wherein at the end of a winding process, a corner having a shape of a triangle (see Fig. 2: corner of rectangle is triangular) remains on which the force of a cutting angle of a knife will act and press and hold the shape of the straw (unclear what this means under 35 U.S.C. 112b).
Park is silent to the straw having 20-40 cm wide, 5-9 cm long on one side, and 3 cm long on the other side, and in which a straw sheet with a height of 0.56 mm is obtained, a width—200 mm, a thickness of one side 50 mm-90 mm, a thickness of the other side—30 mm, and in which the wooden straw as a finished product has dimensions of a height—200 mm, an outer diameter—Ø8-Ø12 mm, an inner diameter—Ø4-Ø6 mm
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to make the straw sheet and the finished product a certain size as claimed above, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 9, Park discloses the process of production of wooden straws (Title) comprising the step of wrapping a raw material (Fig. 2) to obtain a shape of a regular four-sided prism, wherein a knife placed in a vertical position cuts the raw material and to obtain a wooden sheet (The dried slatted wood is cut into sheets using a cutting machine in accordance with the size of each round used in the wood straw. The sliced wood, which is cut to the surface – the sheet is cut to a size).
Park is silent to the wooden sheet with a width of 150 mm-400 mm; a height of 30 mm-50 mm, a thickness of 0.01 mm—1 mm, and in which the wooden straw is obtained as a finished product with dimensions of height—150 mm-400 mm, outer diameter of—Ø8 mm-Ø12 mm, an inner diameter of Ø4 mm-Ø6 mm.
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to make the wooden sheet and the finished product a certain size as claimed above, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
KR 20180069759 teaches a similar wood straw making method.
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
Prosecution Insights