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 .
Drawings
Figures 1 and 2 should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated. See MPEP § 608.02(g). Corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The replacement sheet(s) should be labeled “Replacement Sheet” in the page header (as per 37 CFR 1.84(c)) so as not to obstruct any portion of the drawing figures. If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claim 1, 2, 12, and 13 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, line 2 of the claim, includes the phrase “(3D surface element)”. 37 CFR 1.71(a) says that the claims should use “full, clear, concise, and exact terms”. The parenthetical phrase appears to introduce an alternate name for “a three-dimensionally flexurally deformable surface element”. To have multiple names for one element is not concise and the claims should refer to this element is a consistent manner.
Claims 1 and 12 were submitted as one paragraph. 37 CFR 1.75(i) says “Where a claim sets forth a plurality of elements or steps, each element or step of the claim should be separated by a line indentation”. MPEP 608.01(m) says ”There may be plural indentations to further segregate subcombinations or related steps.” The clean copy of the marked-up claim set should use indentations.
Claim 2 and 13 includes the phrase “a spacing of the”. It should be corrected to –a spacing between the”
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 1-17 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "its thickness" in line 4 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear if this is the thickness of the workpiece or the 3d surface element.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance:
Claim 1 recites the broad recitation “its thickness being greater”, and the claim also recites “in particular at least 5% greater” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation.
Claim 1 recites the broad recitation “no solid cohesion”, and the claim also recites “at least temporarily” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation
Claim 1 recites the broad recitation “at least two adjacent grooves”, and the claim also recites “in particular all of the grooves” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation
Claims 3 and 14 recites the broad recitation “in the range of -15° ≤ β ≤ 15°” and the claim also recites “in particular in the range of -5° ≤ β ≤ 5°” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation
Claims 4 and 15 recites the broad recitation “of less than 30%” and the claim also recites “in particular less than 20% or less than 10%” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation
Claim 6 recites the broad recitation “machining” and the claim also recites “in particular sawing and/or milling” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation
Claim 8 recites the broad recitation “known limits” and the claim also recites “particularly within permissible limits determined by a material of the workpiece and properties of a tool comprising the scoring blades and/or roller blades and with which the grooves are introduced into the workpiece” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation
Claim 9 recites the broad recitation “the position” and the claim also recites “in particular perpendicular to the virtual straight line” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation
Claim 9 recites the broad recitation “is changed” and the claim also recites “in particular using a motor, …. and/ or an eccentric” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation
Claim 9 recites the broad recitation “using a motor” and the claim also recites “particularly a servo motor and/or stepper motor” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation
Claim 12 recites the broad recitation “at least two adjacent joints” and the claim also recites “in particular all of the joints” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation
The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the groove depth" in line 6-7 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 includes the phrase “in each case” in the 7. This limitation is indefinite as its meaning is unclear.
Claim 1 includes the phrase “being separated from the remaining 3D surface element or otherwise processed such that there is at least temporarily no solid cohesion”. This phrase is indefinite because it is unclear if the “such that” phrase only modifies “otherwise processed” or also modifies “being separated”. In light of the disclosure, the “such that” phrase is interpreted as only modifying the “otherwise processed”.
Claim 1 includes the limitation “at least two adjacent grooves … are introduced into the workpiece” in line 14-15 of the claim. It is unclear if these two adjacent grooves are the narrow grooves introduced above or if these two adjacent grooves are different grooves.
Claim 1 includes the limitation “at least sections” in line 15 of the claim. It is unclear what this is sections of. For the purpose of examination, the claim will be interpreted as though it read –at least sections of the grooves--.
The term “irregular undulations” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “irregular” 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.
Likewise rejected, this error repeats in claims 7 and 12.
The term “contiguous rectilinear sections” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “contiguous rectilinear” 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. For the purpose of examination, “contiguous rectilinear” will be interpreted as though it meant --straight--.
Likewise rejected, this error repeats in claims 7 and 12
The term “virtual straight line associated with” in claim 3 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “associated with” 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.
Likewise rejected, this error repeats in claims 4, 9, and 15
The term “corresponding to one another” in claim 5 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “corresponding” 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.
Likewise rejected, this error repeats in claim 16
Claims 7-9 rejected as failing to define the invention in the manner required by 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
The claim(s) are narrative in form and replete with indefinite language. The structure which goes to make up the device must be clearly and positively specified. The structure must be organized and correlated in such a manner as to present a complete operative device. The claim(s) must be in one sentence form only. Note the format of the claims in the patent(s) cited.
Claims 7-9 use an extraordinary number of “and/or” conjunctions. It is unclear how each of the phrase combined by the “and/or” interact with each of the other phrases. For the purpose of examination, the claims were interpreted as though each phrase combined by an “and/or” is not dependent upon another phrase for its meaning.
The term “active selection” in claim 8 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “active” 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 11 claims the use of a method without claiming any steps involved in the use. The claim is indefinite because it is not clear what steps are required. See MPEP 2173.05(q).
All claims dependent on rejected claims are likewise rejected.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because claim 11 fails to recite steps. See MPEP 2173.05(q)(I).
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-4, 6-7, 11-12, 14-15, and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Muller (US2004/0144448).
Re Claim 1, Muller discloses a method for producing a three-dimensionally flexurally deformable surface element (3D surface element) from wood or wood composite material in which a workpiece made of wood, layered wood or a composite of wood and one or more further surface materials is used (beech workpiece 1), its thickness being greater, in particular at least 5% greater, than the thickness of the 3D surface element (three-dimensionally flexurally deformable planar element 14) to be produced (Fig. 1 shows that workpiece 1 has a greater thickness than planar element 14),
wherein narrow grooves spaced apart from one another are introduced into the workpiece (“In this connection, 1 mm deep groves (6) that are spaced 1 mm apart are cut into the veneer (1).” [0048]), wherein the groove depth is in each case greater than or equal to the thickness of the 3D surface element (“there remains a 0.9 mm thick, three-dimensional, flexibly deformable surface element (14)” [0051]) and less than the thickness of the workpiece (“A beech veneer (1) having a thickness of 1.2 mm” [0048]),
the portion of the workpiece which exceeds the thickness of the 3D surface element to be produced then being separated from the remaining 3D surface element (“the aforementioned temporary connection (7), including a safety margin of 0.1 mm, is ground off by a grinder (13)” [0051]) or otherwise processed such that there is at least temporarily no solid cohesion of the areas separated by grooves and
the areas of the workpiece separated by grooves are fixed to each other and/or to a support by a transverse bond prior to, during or after separation from the workpiece (“The now grooved veneer subsequently passes through a heat zone (9), where it is brought to a temperature of 95[deg.] C., and thereafter passes through a glue roller (10) that presses a fusion or hot-melt-type adhesive (11) into the groves (6) at a temperature of 160[deg.] C. The hot-melt-type adhesive (11) hardens or sets as it passes through a cooling zone (12)” [0050]),
wherein at least two adjacent grooves, in particular all of the grooves, are introduced into the workpiece in such a way that at least sections exhibit an irregular undulation and/or contiguous rectilinear sections extending in different directions in a plan view of the workpiece (Fig. 2 shows contiguous rectilinear sections).
Re Claim 3, Muller discloses the method according to claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above), wherein the grooves are introduced into the workpiece in such a way that there is an angle β in the range of -15° ≤ β ≤ 15°, in particular in the range of -5° ≤ β ≤ 5°, between a local normal of each groove and a respective normal of a virtual straight line associated with the respective groove at each point of the respective groove (Fig. 2 shows that there is an angle of 0° between the local normal of each groove and a respective normal of a virtual straight line associated with the respective groove at each point of the respective groove).
Re Claim 4, Muller discloses the method according to claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above), wherein the grooves are introduced into the workpiece such that over the entire length of the groove, there is a distance between each groove and a respective virtual straight line associated therewith of less than 30%, in particular less than 20% or less than 10%, of a distance between the virtual straight line associated with the respective groove and a virtual straight line associated with an adjacent groove of the respective groove (Fig. 2 shows that there is distance between each groove and a respective virtual straight line associated therewith of 0% of a distance between the virtual straight line associated with the respective groove and a virtual straight line associated with an adjacent groove of the respective groove).
Re Claim 6, Muller discloses the method according to claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above), in which the grooves are introduced into the workpiece by means of scoring blade (knives 2) and/or roller blades and/or at least one laser and/or waterjet cutting using a jet of water and/or machining, in particular sawing and/or milling, with a machining tool.
Re Claim 7, Muller discloses the method according to claim 6 (see rejection of claim 6 above), in which the scoring blades and/or the roller blades are configured so as to be passively deflected and/or passively twisted during the introduction of the grooves into the workpiece subject to a hardness of the corresponding section of the workpiece and/or a local course of the wood fibers in said section of the workpiece (Blades are inherently subject to deflectional forces from the wood when cutting the workpiece. This is evidenced by Myrfield, Jr. (US2016/0354848) “Operators manipulate the velocity of the logs through the blade, but frequent out-of-plane deflections in the cut (both laterally and torsionally) due to grain, knots, saw wear, dryness, and mechanical drive-related problems act to decrease both throughput and useable product” [0005]), and/or a position and/or orientation of the scoring blades and/or the roller blades and/or a mount of the scoring blades and/or roller blades is passively changed during the introduction of the grooves into the workpiece subject to the hardness of the corresponding section of the workpiece and/or the local course of the wood fibers in said section of the workpiece and/or actively changed in order to produce the at least sectionally irregularly undulating shape of the grooves or contiguous rectilinear sections of the grooves extending in different directions in the plan view of the workpiece respectively by the passive deflection and/or twisting of the scoring blades and/or the roller blades and/or the active or passive changing of the position and/or orientation of the scoring blades and/or the roller blades and/or the mount of the scoring blades and/or roller blades.
Re Claim 11, Muller discloses the use of a method according to claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above), for producing a layered two- or three-dimensionally formed piece or for laminating a two- or three- dimensionally formed piece (“The invention relates to a method of producing a three-dimensionally, flexibly deformable surface element of wood or wood composite material (3D surface element), which is suitable for producing layered three-dimensionally formed, preferably dish-shaped, parts, or for coating other, three-dimensionally formed components of various materials” [0001]).
Re Claim 12, Muller discloses a three-dimensionally flexurally deformable surface element from wood or wood composite material (beech veneer 1), comprising a plurality of strips of wood (Fig. 1), layered wood or a composite of wood and one or more further surface materials which are fixed to one another and/or to a support by a transverse bond and separated by joints (“there remains a 0.9 mm thick, three-dimensional, flexibly deformable surface element (14), the strips (15) of which are held together by the hot-melt-type adhesive” [0051]), wherein at least sections of at least two adjacent joints, in particular all of the joints, exhibit an irregular undulation and/or contiguous rectilinear sections extending in different directions in a plan view of the three-dimensionally flexurally deformable surface element (Fig. 2 shows contiguous rectilinear sections).
Re Claim 14, Muller discloses the three-dimensionally flexurally deformable surface element according to claim 12 (see rejection of claim 12 above), wherein there is an angle β in the range of -15° ≤ β ≤ 15°, in particular in the range of -5° ≤ β ≤ 5°, between a local normal of each joint and a respective normal of a virtual straight line associated with the respective joint at each point of the respective joint (Fig. 2 shows that there is an angle of 0° between the local normal of each groove and a respective normal of a virtual straight line associated with the respective groove at each point of the respective groove).
Re Claim 15, Muller discloses the three-dimensionally flexurally deformable surface element according to claim 12 (see rejection of claim 12 above), wherein a distance between each joint and a respective virtual straight line associated therewith is less than 30%, in particular less than 20% or less than 10%, of a distance between the virtual straight line associated with the respective joint and a virtual straight line associated with an adjacent joint of the respective joint over the entire length of the joint groove (Fig. 2 shows that there is distance between each groove and a respective virtual straight line associated therewith of 0% of a distance between the virtual straight line associated with the respective groove and a virtual straight line associated with an adjacent groove of the respective groove).
Re Claim 17, Muller discloses a layered two- or three-dimensional formed piece comprising at least one three-dimensionally flexurally deformable surface element (Fig. 3) according to claim 12 (see rejection of claim 12 above).
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(s) 2, 5, 13, and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Muller (US2004/0144448), in view of Hibert (FR 3046561)
Re Claim 2, Muller discloses the method according to claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above), but does not disclose that the at least two adjacent grooves are introduced into the workpiece such that a spacing of the at least two adjacent grooves measured in a width direction of the grooves varies along a longitudinal direction of the grooves.
Hilbert teaches that the at least two adjacent grooves are introduced into the workpiece such that a spacing of the at least two adjacent grooves measured in a width direction of the grooves varies along a longitudinal direction of the grooves (Figs. 2 and 3) in order to have a more stimulating and sensorially pleasant product (“The support surface is totally stimulating, while being sensorially pleasant for the user without being physically too noticeable.” Pg. 2, Lines 23-24).
Muller discloses a method which differs from the claimed method in that adjacent grooves are not into the workpiece such that a spacing of the at least two adjacent grooves measured in a width direction of the grooves varies along a longitudinal direction of the grooves. Hilbert teaches cutting the wood with rotary shafts that can move transverse and vertically to the wooden boards direction of travel. (“Preferably, the process employs at least two rotating shafts, 20 each carrying at least one, preferably several, machining tool(s), the shafts being spaced apart and parallel, rotating in the opposite direction to the scrolling of the longitudinal element, being movable in translation transverse to the scrolling direction, and at least one of the shafts being also movable vertically, that is to say in a direction 25 perpendicular to the horizontal scrolling plane.” Pg. 6, Lines 13-18). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Muller to incorporate cutters with the degrees of freedom taught by Hilbert in order to cut adjacent grooves that vary in spacing in the width direction along a longitudinal direction and have a more stimulating and sensorially pleasant product.
Re Claim 5, Muller discloses the method according to claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above), but does not disclose that wherein the grooves are introduced into the workpiece such that sections of different grooves extending in the longitudinal direction and corresponding to one another in the longitudinal direction are of different shape in the plan view of the workpiece.
Hilbert teaches that grooves are introduced into the workpiece such that sections of different grooves extending in the longitudinal direction and corresponding to one another in the longitudinal direction are of different shape in the plan view of the workpiece (Fig. 3) in order to have a more stimulating and sensorially pleasant product (“The support surface is totally stimulating, while being sensorially pleasant for the user without being physically too noticeable.” Pg. 2, Lines 23-24).
Muller discloses a method which differs from the claimed method in that grooves are not introduced into the workpiece such that sections of different grooves extending in the longitudinal direction and corresponding to one another in the longitudinal direction are of different shape in the plan view of the workpiece. Hilbert teaches cutting the wood with rotary shafts that can move transverse and vertically to the wooden boards direction of travel. (“Preferably, the process employs at least two rotating shafts, 20 each carrying at least one, preferably several, machining tool(s), the shafts being spaced apart and parallel, rotating in the opposite direction to the scrolling of the longitudinal element, being movable in translation transverse to the scrolling direction, and at least one of the shafts being also movable vertically, that is to say in a direction 25 perpendicular to the horizontal scrolling plane.” Pg. 6, Lines 13-18) to achieve the grooves as shown in Fig. 3. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Muller to incorporate cutters with the degrees of freedom taught by Hilbert in order to cut grooves that vary in shape in the plan view of the workpiece and have a more stimulating and sensorially pleasant product.
Re Claim 13, Muller discloses the three-dimensionally flexurally deformable surface element according to claim 12 (see rejection of claim 12 above), wherein a spacing of the at least two adjacent joints measured in a width direction of the joints varies along a longitudinal direction of the joints.
Hilbert teaches that the spacing of the at least two adjacent joints measured in a width direction of the joints varies along a longitudinal direction of the joints (Figs. 2 and 3).
Muller discloses a product which differs from the claimed product in that a spacing of the at least two adjacent grooves measured in a width direction of the grooves does not vary along a longitudinal direction of the grooves. Hilbert teaches cutting the wood with a spacing of the at least two adjacent joints measured in a width direction of the joints varies along a longitudinal direction of the joints in order to make the resulting product prettier. (“The support surface is totally stimulating, while being sensorially pleasant for the user without being physically too noticeable.” Pg. 2, Lines 23-24) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the surface element of Muller with the spacing taught by Hilbert in order to have a more visually appealing product and one of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success.
Re Claim 16, Muller discloses the three-dimensionally flexurally deformable surface element according to claim 12 (see rejection of claim 12 above), wherein the sections of different joints extending in the longitudinal direction and corresponding to one another in the longitudinal direction are of different shape in the plan view of the three-dimensionally flexurally deformable surface element.
Hilbert teaches that grooves are introduced into the workpiece such that sections of different joints extending in the longitudinal direction and corresponding to one another in the longitudinal direction are of different shape in the plan view of the workpiece (Fig. 3).
Muller discloses a product which differs from the claimed product in that the sections of different joints extending in the longitudinal direction and corresponding to one another in the longitudinal direction are of different shape in the plan view of the three-dimensionally flexurally deformable surface element. Hilbert teaches cutting the wood with the sections of different joints extending in the longitudinal direction and corresponding to one another in the longitudinal direction of different shapes in the plan view of the three-dimensionally flexurally deformable surface element in order to make the resulting product prettier. (“The support surface is totally stimulating, while being sensorially pleasant for the user without being physically too noticeable.” Pg. 2, Lines 23-24) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the surface element of Muller with the spacing taught by Hilbert in order to have a more visually appealing product and one of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Muller (US2004/0144448), in view of Korean Patent Document (KR 100338995)
Re Claim 8, Muller discloses the method according to claim 7 (see rejection of claim 7 above), but fails to disclose in which a hardness of the scoring blades and/or the roller blades , in particular of a material thereof, and/or a material strength of the scoring blades and/or the roller blades and/or a free length of the scoring blades and/or roller blades and/or a cutting edge geometry, particularly an edge angle and/or bevel angle of the scoring blades and/or roller blades , and/or a ductility and/or an elasticity and/or a resilience of the scoring blades and/or the roller blades and/or an inclination angle of the scoring blades and/or roller blades with respect to the workpiece and/or one or more materials from which the scoring blades and/or roller blades are formed, and/or the position and/or the orientation of the scoring blades and/or roller blades and/or the mount of the scoring blades and/or roller blades when the grooves are introduced into the workpiece depending on type of wood and/or a degree of plasticization of the wood of the workpiece and/or the hardness of the corresponding section of the workpiece and/or the local course of the wood fibers in said section of the workpiece and/or a global course of the wood fibers is actively selected such that during the introduction of the grooves into the workpiece , the scoring blades and/or the roller blades are passively deflected and/or twisted within known limits, particularly within permissible limits determined by a material of the workpiece and properties of a tool comprising the scoring blades and/or roller blades and with which the grooves are introduced into the workpiece.
Korean Patent Document teaches actively selecting the cutting edge geometry (acute angle 51, “If the veneer V is cut while the acute angle 51 of the blade 5 is missing, the holding state of the cutting edge B and the blade back plate Bb due to the lack of the acute angle 51 becomes unstable. The position of the tip is bent in the direction away from the log W. For this reason, the veneer V cannot be cut to a uniform thickness. Such a defect can be solved by replacing the blade 5 where the acute angle part 51 is missing with a new one.” Pg. 4, Line 7-13) or the material (“This defect can also be solved by making the blade 5 made of hard to deflect steel. In this case, however, the acute angle 51 is plastically deformed or warped, resulting in an inconsistent edge position of the cutting edge B. As a result, the veneer cannot be cut to a uniform thickness.” Pg. 4, Lines 21-25) in order to keep the roller blade’s deflection within limits (The Korean Patent Document established whether the blade can cut veneer to a uniform thickness as its known limit. Korean Patent Document also teaches that there is a relation between the amount of passive deflection and either the cutting edge geometry and material of the blades. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that if the blade was passively deflected within known limits, then nothing needed to be changed. However, if the deflection exceeded known limits, then the blade’s cutting edge needed to be replaced or the material of the blade needed to be changed).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Muller to incorporate the cutting edge geometry or material as taught by Korean Patent Document to keep the passive deflection of the roller blade within limits and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized a reasonable expectation of success.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Muller (US2004/0144448), in view of Vasilievich et al. (CA2076660), hereinafter referred to as Vasilievich.
Re Claim 9, Muller discloses the method according to claim 7 (see rejection of claim 7 above), but fails to disclose that the position, in particular perpendicular to the virtual straight line, and/or the alignment of the scoring blades and/or the roller blades and/or the mount of the scoring blades and/or roller blades and/or a position and/or alignment of the laser and/or the water jet and/or the machining tool is changed as the grooves are being introduced into the workpiece , in particular using a motor, particularly a servomotor and/or stepper motor, and/or an eccentric.
Vasilievich teaches that the position, in particular perpendicular to the virtual straight line, and/or the alignment of the scoring blades and/or the roller blades and/or the mount of the scoring blades and/or roller blades and/or a position and/or alignment of the laser and/or the water jet and/or the machining tool (working tool 56) is changed as the grooves are being introduced into the workpiece (“a mechanism for ensuring relative movement of its working table and platform is designed so as to secure by purely mechanical means a plurality of different combinations of the working motions of the machine members” Pg. 2, Lines 9-13, “the mechanism for ensuring relative movement of the working table and the platform is made in the form of at least two pairs of eccentrics” Pg. 2, Lines 22-24, and Figs. 5-20), in particular using a motor, particularly a servomotor and/or stepper motor, and/or an eccentric (eccentrics 8, 9, 10).
Vasilievich teaches using eccentrics to modify the alignment of the machining tool to create different patterns of grooves in the workpiece. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Muller to incorporate the eccentrics taught by Vasilievich in order to create different patterns and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized a reasonable expectation of success.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Muller (US2004/0144448), in view of Armin (DE3209300).
Re Claim 10, Muller discloses the method according to claim 6 (see rejection of claim 6 above), and further discloses that the grooves are introduced into the workpiece by means of scoring blades (knives 2) and/or roller blades, but fails to disclose that the blades of which are wedge-shaped in cross section, in particular along a width direction of the groove to be introduced, such that at least two adjacent scoring blades and/or roller blades have a different penetration depth into the workpiece.
Armin teaches that the blades of which are wedge-shaped in cross section, in particular along a width direction of the groove to be introduced, such that at least two adjacent scoring blades and/or roller blades have a different penetration depth into the workpiece (Fig. 5, “This makes it easy to create notches of varying depths on the back of the veneer if the diameter of the discs is chosen differently.” [0029])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective fling date of the claimed invention to have modified Muller to use the scoring blades taught by Armin such that adjacent scoring blades could have a different penetration depth into the workpiece.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Josefsson et al. (US2020/0282589) teaches corresponding grooves of different shape in the plan view of the workpiece (Fig. 7d).
Thrasher (US 3645304) teaches roller blades built to have minor deflections during operations.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM D DICKSTEIN whose telephone number is (571) 272-1847. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 10:00 am to 5:00 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.
/W.D.D./Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3725
/Christopher L Templeton/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3725
Prosecution Insights