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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group II, claims 4-10 and 26-27 in the reply filed on 5/29/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 2-3, 11-15 and 28-35 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected groups I and III-V, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 5/29/2026.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in Application No. 18844128, filed on 9/05/2024.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 9/05/2024 and 8/19/2025 were filed on/after the filing date of the application on 9/05/2024. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement has been considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 5-6, 9-10 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 1, “round wood” should be “a round wood” for clarity.
Regarding claim 1, lines 7 and 9, “frame” and “head” should be “frame,” and “head,” for clarity.
Regarding claim 5, “increments” should be “increments.” for clarity.
Regarding claim 6, “the processing portal” should be “the machining gantry” for keeping term consistent.
Regarding claim 9, “rotation” should be “rotation.” for clarity.
Regarding claim 10, “direction” should be “direction.” for clarity.
Regarding claim 10, “it and “its” should be replace with the term they are referring to for clarity.
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, 4-10 and 26-27 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.
Regarding claim 1, lines 11 and 13, it is unclear if the limitation after “particular” is required by the claim or not.
Regarding claims 5, 7, 10 and 27, it is unclear if the limitation after “preferably” is required by the claim or not.
Regarding claim 5, “the round wood is rotatably mounted on the machine frame the holding device” is infinite. It is unclear if the application intended to claim the round wood (which is the work piece).
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.
Claims 1, 7-8, 10 and 26-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wyndham (CA 230037 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Wyndham teaches a wood-machining device for machining round wood aligned along a longitudinal direction of the wood-machining device (along the axis of 14), comprising:
a machine frame (frame of 286), a machining gantry (26) mounted movably on the machine frame at least in the longitudinal direction a holding device (one of 30) arranged on the machine frame for holding the round wood on the machine frame (see Figure 1),
a trimming device (34a) arranged on the machining gantry for trimming the round wood, the trimming device having at least one milling head
a cutting device (16) arranged on the machining gantry for cutting the round wood, the cutting device having at least one, in particular horizontally oriented, saw (see Figure 1), and
a splitting device (24b) arranged on the machining gantry for splitting the round wood, the splitting device having at least one, in particular vertically oriented, saw (see Figure 1).
Regarding claim 7, Wyndham teaches the at least one milling head of the trimming device is rotatable and preferably at right angles to the longitudinal direction mounted linearly displaceable on the machining gantry (see Figure 1).
Regarding claim 8, Wyndham teaches the trimming device comprises a drive motor (24) arranged on the machining gantry for the at least one milling head of the trimming device (see Figure 1).
Regarding claim 10, Wyndham teaches the at least one saw of the cutting device, is mounted, preferably in the vertical direction (see Figure 1 of Wyndham), on the machining gantry so that it can be moved linearly or that the holding device is mounted so that it can be moved linearly relative to the machining gantry and its cutting device, preferably in the vertical direction (see Figure 1 of Wyndham).
Regarding claim 26, Wyndham teaches the holding device has at least two clamping elements separate from the holding jaws for holding the round wood via lateral surfaces (page 6 lines 6-19).
Regarding claim 27, Wyndham teaches a guide device (the other 30) for feeding the round wood is arranged on the machine frame, the guide device comprising two horizontal supports aligned substantially at right angles to the longitudinal axis and movably mounted, preferably V-shaped, guide pieces on the supports (page 6 lines 6-19).
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.
Claims 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wyndham (CA 230037 A1) in view of Henderickson (US 5109899).
Regarding claim 4, Wyndham teaches all elements of the current invention as set forth in claim 1 above.
Wyndham fails to teach the holding device has at least two holding jaws, wherein in a holding position the holding jaws contact the round wood, substantially centrally, on opposite end faces of the round wood.
Henderickson teaches a saw cutting device including a holding device, wherein the holding device has at least two holding jaws, wherein in a holding position the holding jaws contact the round wood, substantially centrally, on opposite end faces of the round wood (see Figure 1), the round wood is rotatably mounted on the machine frame the holding device, preferably in 90° increments (see Figure 9).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device of Wyndham to change the holding device, as taught by Henderickson, in order to better cut the work piece (abstract of Henderickson).
Regarding claim 5, Wyndham teaches all elements of the current invention as set forth in claim 1 above.
Wyndham fails to teach the round wood is rotatably mounted on the machine frame the holding device, preferably in 90° increments.
Henderickson teaches a saw cutting device including a holding device, wherein the holding device has at least two holding jaws, wherein in a holding position the holding jaws contact the round wood, substantially centrally, on opposite end faces of the round wood (see Figure 1), the round wood is rotatably mounted on the machine frame the holding device, preferably in 90° increments (see Figure 9).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device of Wyndham to change the holding device, as taught by Henderickson, in order to better cut the work piece (abstract of Henderickson).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wyndham (CA 230037 A1) in view of Belzile (US 20130283992 A1).
Regarding claim 6, Wyndham further teaches travel rails are arranged on the machine frame (see Figure 1 of Wyndham).
Wyndham fails to teach the processing portal being mounted on the travel rails via rollers.
Belzile teaches the processing portal being mounted on the travel rails via rollers.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device of Wyndham to add roller, as taught by Belzile, in order to better move the gantry (see Figure 5 of Belzile).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wyndham (CA 230037 A1) in view of Rajala (US 5806401).
Regarding claim 9, Wyndham teaches all elements of the current invention as set forth in claim 1 above.
Wyndham fails to teach the trimming device has at least three milling heads rotatable about a vertical axis of rotation.
Rajala teaches trimming device with milling heads rotatable about a vertical axis of rotation (96A-B, see Figure 10).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device of Wyndham to add additional milling head, as taught by Rajala, in order to better cut wood (abstract of Rajala).
With to at least three milling head, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device of Wyndham to add three milling head. Since the courts have held that a duplication of parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art, absent any showing of unexpected results. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) MEPE 2144.04 VI. B.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LIANG DONG whose telephone number is (571)270-0479. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 8 AM-6 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, Ashley Boyer can be reached at 571-272-4502. 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.
/LIANG DONG/Examiner, Art Unit 3724 6/19/2026
Prosecution Insights