Office Action Predictor
Last updated: April 16, 2026
Application No. 18/842,035

PROCESS FOR THE MANUFACTURE OF SMALL BLOCKS MADE FROM WOOD FIBERS

Non-Final OA §102§103§112
Filed
Aug 27, 2024
Examiner
WILKENS, JANET MARIE
Art Unit
3637
Tech Center
3600 — Transportation & Electronic Commerce
Assignee
Imal S.R.L.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
72%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 1m
To Grant
85%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 72% — above average
72%
Career Allow Rate
897 granted / 1242 resolved
+20.2% vs TC avg
Moderate +13% lift
Without
With
+12.9%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Fast prosecutor
2y 1m
Avg Prosecution
26 currently pending
Career history
1268
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§103
39.2%
-0.8% vs TC avg
§102
26.6%
-13.4% vs TC avg
§112
26.2%
-13.8% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1242 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103 §112
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 . Priority Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55. Specification The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: on page 3, lines 2-5, it is improper to refer to specific claims in the specification. Claims can be amended, thus changing the scope of the specification. Appropriate correction is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a): (a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention. The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112: The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention. Claims 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Namely, it is unclear how the material mixture is inserted into the channel. No gravity feeder, for example, is discussed. It is also unclear how the compaction of the blocks occur, since only the extruder body/thrust member motion is discussed. It is being assumed that the blocks are compressed between the thrust member or an adjacent block and an opposing adjacent block. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 &35 USC § 103 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. 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. Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Kreibaum (2,960,423). Kreibaum teaches a process for the manufacture of blocks (Fig. 2) made from wood fibers, comprising at least the following phases of: supply of at least one mixture of material based on wood fibers, in the form of flakes and having a substantially elongated conformation, and resin (column 3, lines 2-11); supply of at least one extrusion channel provided with at least one outlet port substantially shaped like a parallelogram and having a pair of first sides with a first length and a pair of second sides with a second length (column 5, lines 6-24; chamber is opened at both ends with inlet and outlet, chamber has side walls forming block structure shown in Fig. 2); supply of at least one extruder body (column 5, lines 6-24; plunger) shaped substantially complementary to said extrusion channel, wherein said extruder body is movable linearly by shifting within said extrusion channel along a direction of compaction (block compresses against adjacent blocks; column 4, lines 72-75), defines at least one thrust plane transverse to said direction of compaction and is adapted to contact the material mixture; compaction of said mixture within said extrusion channel though the movement of said extruder body along said direction of compaction so as to obtain a compacted body, the fibers of said material arranging in a substantially coplanar manner to said thrust plane (Fig. 2) and on lying planes which are transverse to said direction of compaction; extrusion of said compacted body through said outlet port, said compacted body having at least one free end exiting from said outlet port; cutting of said compacted body along a cutting plane (column 7, lines 4-7) which is transverse to said direction of compaction at a predefined distance from said free end along said direction of compaction so as to obtain a block made from wood fibers, the sides of which have a first dimension corresponding to said first length (L1; see annotated figure below), a second dimension corresponding to said second length (L2) and a third dimension corresponding to said predefined distance (L3); and characterized by the fact that said predefined distance is greater than or equal to the lesser of either said first length or said second length so that said small block has four main faces arranged orthogonally to said cutting plane, having a main side defined by said predefined distance and at which said lying planes are arranged transverse to said main side, and at least two cutting faces opposite each other, obtained by means of said cut and bounded by the side having a smaller dimension than the others. PNG media_image1.png 248 593 media_image1.png Greyscale Although Kreibaum states that the blocks can be cut to a desired size (column 7, lines 4-7), a small block formation is not specifically specified. However, it would have been an obvious consideration to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to dimension the blocks accordingly, including small in nature, depending on the intended use of the blocks. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ237 (CCPA 1955) and MPEP2144.04 Kreibaum further teaches that said predefined distance (L3) is greater than the lesser of either said first length (L1) or said second length (L2). That said cut comprises simultaneously performing a plurality of said cuts, where each of them is placed at said predefined distance (L3) from the cut preceding it along said direction of compaction (5). The process comprises at least one phase of sectioning said small block along a sectional plane which is orthogonal to said cutting faces. Wherein the cutting plane is arranged orthogonally to said direction of compaction. The small block is substantially shaped like a parallelepiped (Fig. 2). Claims 7-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shelor (3,661,099) in view of Kreibaum (2,960,423). Shelor teaches a wood pallet having a platform element (1) with a load bearing face and a mating face and having wood block supports (2) attached to the mating face by fasteners (column 2, lines 46-47). Shelor fails to teach that the blocks have the claimed construction found in claim 1. As stated above, Kreibaum teaches a wood block with the desired construction. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the pallet of Shelor, by using blocks with the construction of Kreibaum, to provide stronger, non-warping pallet support members. Because Shelor in view of Kreibaum teaches the structural limitations of claim 7, the manufacturing process would inherently be provided for. This includes arranging the blocks so that the relevant said cutting faces are arranged transverse to said load-bearing face and wherein the remaining main faces arranged transversely to said load-bearing face are accessible from the outside and with the relevant fiber lying planes arranged, in use, vertically. The attaching can be carried out by arranging said mating face resting on a main face of each of said small blocks. Wherein the small blocks are arranged spaced apart from each other to define a plurality of through cavities (Fig. 1 of Shelor) between them. Wherein said cutting faces of said small blocks are arranged perpendicularly to said load-bearing face. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JANET M WILKENS whose telephone number is 571-272-6869. The examiner can normally be reached Mon thru Thurs 7am-5:30pm EST. 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, Daniel Troy can be reached at 571-270-3742. 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. Wilkens December 31, 2025 /JANET M WILKENS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3637
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Aug 27, 2024
Application Filed
Dec 31, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103, §112
Mar 25, 2026
Response Filed

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12595062
COCKPIT TABLE SYSTEM
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12595954
REFRIGERATOR DOOR
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12590751
DOMESTIC APPLIANCE HAVING A SYMMETRICAL BRACKET OF A HINGE FOR A DOOR
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12558581
CONVERTIBLE HARNESS
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 24, 2026
Patent 12551009
PORTABLE STANDS FOR PORTABLE GRILLS
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 17, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
72%
Grant Probability
85%
With Interview (+12.9%)
2y 1m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 1242 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in for Full Analysis

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month