Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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.
2. Claims 9-13 and 14-20 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 9 recites “a housing”. Then, claim 9 again recites “a housing”. It is unclear if the later claimed “a housing” is the same or different from the previously claimed “a housing”. It is unclear how many different housings are claimed in claim 9.
Claim 9 recites “a bottom plate”. Then, claim 9 again recites “a bottom plate”. It is unclear if the later claimed “a bottom plate” is the same or different from the previously claimed “a bottom plate”. It is unclear how many different bottom plates are claimed in claim 9.
Claim 9 recites “at least one opening is arranged between the bottom plate of the housing and each of the wall plates”. Then, claim 9 again recites “at least one opening arranged between a bottom plate of a housing of the vacuum box and each of wall plates”. It is unclear if the later claimed “at least one opening” is the same or different from the previously claimed “at least one opening”. It is unclear how many different openings are claimed in claim 9. Claims 10-13 depend from claim 9, and therefore have the same indefiniteness issues as outlined above with regard to claim 9.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "the vacuum belt conveyor" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claims 15-20 depend from claim 14, and therefore have the same indefiniteness issue as outlined above with regard to claim 14.
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.
3. Claims 1, 3, 5, 7, 9-10 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Japanese Publication No. 2018-131302 (hereinafter “JP’302”).
Regarding claim 1, Figs. 1-6 show a vacuum box (228) for a vacuum belt conveyor system (Fig. 2) for conveying a veneer sheet (P), the vacuum box (228) comprises a housing (Fig. 3) having a top plate (plate labeled “228” looking into page in Fig. 3), wall plates (upper and lower vertical plates on vacuum box 228 in Fig. 3), a bottom plate (bottom plate of vacuum box 228 in Fig. 4) and end plates (left and right vertical plates on vacuum box 228 in Fig. 3), wherein at least one opening (228a and 228b) is arranged between the bottom plate (bottom plate of vacuum box 228 in Fig. 4) of the housing (Fig. 3) and each of the wall plates (upper and lower vertical plates on vacuum box 228 in Fig. 3) of the housing (Fig. 3) along a length of the vacuum box (228) and wherein a shape of the bottom plate (bottom plate of vacuum box 228 in Fig. 4) is such that edge areas (left and right ends of bottom plate of vacuum box 228 in Fig. 4) of the bottom plate (bottom plate of vacuum box 228 in Fig. 4) are further away from an imaginary plane (plane along bottom of belts 221b and 221c in Fig. 4) on which the veneer sheet (P) is conveyable than a middle area (middle portion) of the bottom plate (bottom plate of vacuum box 228 in Fig. 4). The first and second openings (228a and 228b) extend upward from the bottom plate (bottom plate of vacuum box 228 in Fig. 4) and over to the wall plates (upper and lower vertical plates on vacuum box 228 in Fig. 3). These openings are divided by separation wall 228c and gate 229.
Regarding claim 3, Figs. 1-6 show that the wall plate (upper vertical plate in Fig. 3) comprises a shoulder piece (upper lefthand corner portion) extending vertically down towards an outer edge of the bottom plate (bottom plate of vacuum box 228 in Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 5, Figs. 1-6 show that the vacuum box (228) comprises a front opening (228a2) for generating a suction to capture the veneer sheet (P).
Regarding claim 7, Figs. 1-6 show that the bottom plate (bottom plate of vacuum box 228 in Fig. 4) comprises a shape of at least one of the following: at least in part V-shaped; at least in part curved; the middle area (middle portion) is arranged to travel parallel to the imaginary plane on which the veneer sheet (P) is conveyable.
Regarding claim 9, Figs. 1-6 show a vacuum belt conveyor system (Fig. 2) for conveying a veneer sheet (P), the vacuum belt conveyor system (Fig. 2) comprises:
a vacuum box (228) comprising a housing (Fig. 3) having a top plate (plate labeled “228” looking into page in Fig. 3), wall plates (upper and lower vertical plates on vacuum box 228 in Fig. 3), a bottom plate (bottom plate of vacuum box 228 in Fig. 4) and end plates (left and right vertical plates on vacuum box 228 in Fig. 3), wherein at least one opening (228a and 228b) is arranged between the bottom plate (bottom plate of vacuum box 228 in Fig. 4) of the housing (Fig. 3) and each of the wall plates (upper and lower vertical plates on vacuum box 228 in Fig. 3) of the housing (Fig. 3) along a length of the vacuum box (228) and wherein a shape of the bottom plate (bottom plate of vacuum box 228 in Fig. 4) is such that edge areas (left and right ends of bottom plate in Fig. 4) of the bottom plate (bottom plate of vacuum box 228 in Fig. 4) are further away from an imaginary plane (plane along bottom of belts 221b and 221c) on which the veneer sheet (P) is conveyable than a middle area (middle portion) of the bottom plate (bottom plate of vacuum box 228 in Fig. 4),
a number (one) of suction devices (227) configured to suck air from the vacuum box (228) through at least one conduit (unnumbered conduit connected to elements 227 and 228 in Fig. 3) to cause a vacuum effect through at least one opening (228a and 228b) arranged between a bottom plate (bottom plate of vacuum box 228 in Fig. 4) of a housing (Fig. 3) of the vacuum box (228) and each of wall plates (upper and lower vertical plates on vacuum box 228 in Fig. 3) of the housing (Fig. 3) of the vacuum box (228),
a plurality of belt conveyor devices (including 221a-221d) associated to the vacuum box (228) on both sides of the vacuum box (228) to convey the veneer sheet (P) suspended against belts (221a-221d) of the plurality of belt conveyor devices (including 221a-221d) with the vacuum effect.
Regarding claim 10, as best understood, Figs. 1-6 show that the bottom plate (bottom plate of vacuum box 228 in Fig. 4) is positioned with respect to an imaginary plane (plane passing through belts 221b and 221c) defined by those belt sections of the plurality of belt conveyor devices (221a-221d) against which the veneer sheet (P) is suspendable so that a middle area (middle portion) of the bottom plate (bottom plate of vacuum box 228 in Fig. 4) travels above the imaginary plane.
Regarding claim 13, Figs. 1-18 show that the number of suction devices (227) is at least one of the following types: a blower, a vacuum pump. See, e.g., Fig. 3.
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.
4. Claims 2, 4, 6, 8 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP’302. With regard to claim 2, JP’302 teaches most of the limitations of this claim including the at least one small opening (228a and 228b) arranged between the bottom plate (bottom plate of vacuum box 228 in Fig. 4) of the housing (Fig. 3) and each of the wall plates (upper and lower vertical plates on vacuum box 228 in Fig. 3) of the housing (Fig. 3), but JP’302 does not explicitly teach the small width of the at least one opening is 6-12mm, as claimed. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to select a width range for the opening between 6mm and 12mm, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art (i.e., small width opening), discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. One having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make the width of the opening between 6mm and 12mm to provide the proper amount of suction to the sheet P to hold it onto the suction chamber (228). See, e.g., MPEP 2144.05 II.
With regard to claim 4, JP’302 teaches most of the limitations of this claim including the small shoulder piece (upper lefthand corner portion of upper vertical plate in Fig. 3) towards the outer edge of the bottom plate (bottom plate of vacuum box 228 in Fig. 4), but JP’302 does not explicitly teach the small shoulder piece is at least 10 mm, as claimed. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to select a shoulder piece size of at least 10mm, since applicant has not disclosed that making the shoulder piece at least 10mm solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears that the invention would perform equally well with a shoulder piece that is smaller than 10mm. Absent any criticality whatsoever, it is a design choice to select a shoulder size of at least 10mm.
With regard to claim 6, JP’302 teaches most of the limitations of this claim including the thick bottom plate (bottom plate of vacuum box 228 in Fig. 4), but JP’302 does not explicitly teach the thick bottom plate is between 4.5mm - 28 mm, as claimed. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to select a thickness range for the bottom plate between 4.5mm and 28mm, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art (i.e., thick bottom plate), discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. One having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make the thickness of the bottom plate between 4.5mm and 28mm to provide the proper amount of support to the sheet P shown in Fig. 4 of JP’302. See, e.g., MPEP 2144.05 II.
With regard to claim 8, JP’302 teaches most of the limitations of this claim including a middle area including a V-shape with a wide bending angle of the V-shaped middle area, but JP’302 does not explicitly teach this bending angle is between 150-175 degrees, as claimed. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to select a bending angle of the V-shaped middle area between 150-175 degrees, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art (i.e., wide bending angle of V-shaped middle area), discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. One having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make the bending angle of the V-shaped middle area between 150-170 degrees to provide the proper amount of clearance to accommodate different shaped sheets on the different sets of belts (221a-221d) as shown in Fig. 4 of JP’302. See, e.g., MPEP 2144.05 II.
With regard to claim 11, JP’302 teaches most of the limitations of this claim including a small distance between the middle area (middle portion) of the bottom plate (bottom plate of vacuum box 228 in Fig. 4) and the imaginary plane (plane passing through belts 221b and 221c), but JP’302 does not explicitly teach this distance is between 5 mm and 12 mm, as claimed. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to select a distance between the middle of the bottom plate and the imaginary plane between 5mm and 12mm, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art (i.e., small distance between middle of bottom plate and the imaginary plane), discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. One having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make the distance between the middle of the bottom plate and the imaginary plane between 5mm and 12mm to provide the proper amount of suction to the sheet P during conveyance as shown in Fig. 4 of JP’302. See, e.g., MPEP 2144.05 II.
5. Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP’302 as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent No. 5,562,281 (Honda et al.) (hereinafter “Honda”). With regard to claim 12, JP’302 teaches all of the limitations of this claim, except for kicker arms, as claimed.
Honda shows that it is well-known in the art to provide a vacuum belt conveyor system (Fig. 2) with a number of kicker arms (including 2b-2d) for providing a force to a veneer sheet (P) suspended with a vacuum effect to release it from the suspension. Lines 26-28 in column 3 explain that this arrangement hits and drops veneer P obliquely downward. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide the apparatus of JP’302 with kicker arms for the purpose of hitting and dropping sheets obliquely downward, as taught by Honda.
Response to Arguments
6. Applicant’s arguments, see pages 1-7 of the response, filed 11/12/2025, with respect to the rejection of claims 1, 3, 5, 7, 9-10 and 13 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and the rejections of claims 2,4,6 and 11-12 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, several new grounds of rejection are made above.
Allowable Subject Matter
7. Claims 14-20 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.
Conclusion
8. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THOMAS A MORRISON whose telephone number is (571)272-7221. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am - 5pm.
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, Mike McCullough can be reached at 571-272-7805. 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.
/THOMAS A MORRISON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3653