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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 1 objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 1, in lines 1-2 the phrase “the steps of” should be changed to “steps of”.
Regarding claim 1, in line 8 the phrase “during pressing” should be changed to “during the pressing”.
Regarding claim 1, in line 9 the phrase “wherein pressing is performed cold” should be changed to “wherein the pressing is performed cold”.
Regarding claim 1, in line 10 the phrase “wherein pressing is performed dry” should be changed to “wherein the pressing is performed dry”.
Regarding claim 1, in line 14 the phrase “against the workpiece during pressing” should be changed to “against the workpiece during the pressing”.
Regarding claim 3, the phrase “the direction along the grain of the wood fibers” should be changed to “the direction along-grain”.
Regarding claims 2-4, 14, 18 and 22, the phrase “pressing” should be changed to “the pressing”.
Regarding claim 10, the phrase “a bottom surface of the die” should be changed to “the bottom surface of the die”.
Regarding claim 17, the phrase “said piece of wood” should be changed to “the piece of wood”.
Regarding claim 19, the phrase “the direction along the grain of the wood fibers” should be changed to “the direction along the grain”.
Regarding claim 20, the phrase “said shaping press” should be changed to “the shaping press”.
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 1-5, 7-12 and 14-22 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the fibers" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 1, in lines 14-15 the phrase “making a second angle” render the claim indefinite because claim 1 never recited “a firs angle”, so it is unclear why having “a second angle” without “a first angle”.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the contact surface" in line 16. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the first part" in line 19. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 1, in line 20 the phrase “come into contact with the workpiece and then penetrate same” render the claim indefinite because it is unclear what is meant by “then penetrate same”.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the effect" in line 20. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 2-5, 7-12 and 14-22 are rejected because they depend from claim 1.
The term “essentially” in claim 2 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “essentially” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the height" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the first guide flank" in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 4, in lines 1-2 the phrase “the first guide flank” render the claim indefinite because it is unclear what is meant by “the first guide flank”.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the maximum heigh" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claims 5 and 16, the phrase "preferably" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Regarding claim 18, the phrase “its porosity” render the claim indefinite because it is unclear to which element “its” refers to.
Regarding claim 18, the phrase “its density” render the claim indefinite because it is unclear to which element “its” refers to.
Regarding claim 21, the phrase “a wood object” render the claim indefinite because it is unclear if “a wood object” is the same as or different “a wood object” that recited in claim 1 which claim 21 depends from.
Claim 2-5, 7-12, 14-17, 19-20 and 22 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite because single claim which claims both an apparatus and the method steps of using the apparatus is indefinite under. See MPEP § 2173.05(p).
Regarding claims 2-5, 7-12, 14-17, 19-20 and 22, the recitation of the claim renders the claim indefinite because the preamble of the claim is drawn to a method and then the claim recites the structure of an apparatus; therefore, the claim is unclear and indefinite; and the Applicant must amend claims 2-5, 7-12, 14-17, 19-20 and 22 to clearly define the claim in the terms of the method steps.
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)(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.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hyatt (US0987368A).
The claimed phrase “a wood object” is being treated as a product by process limitation. As set forth in MPEP 2113, product by process claims are not limited to the manipulation of the recited steps, only the structure implied by the steps. Once a product appearing to be substantially the same or similar is found, a 35 USC 102/103 rejection may be made and the burden is shifted to applicant to show an unobvious difference. MPEP 2113.
Regarding claim 21, Hyatt discloses a wood object (fig.6).
Allowable Subject Matter
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 1, the closet prior art is Hyatt (US0987368A)., however in the opinion of the Examiner that the arts of record neither anticipates nor render obvious the limitations of the claim as recited.
Claim 1 would be allowable if rewritten or amended 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.
Claims 2-6, 7-12, 14-20 and 22 are depended from claim 1.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMMED S ALAWADI whose telephone number is (571)272-2224. The examiner can normally be reached 08:00 am- 05:00 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 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. 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.
/MOHAMMED S. ALAWADI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3725