DETAILED ACTION
This is a final Office Action on the merits for U.S. App. 18/855,952. Receipt of the amendments and arguments filed on 07/02/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 1 and 3-16 are pending.
Claim 2 is cancelled.
Claims 1 and 3-16 are examined.
Drawings
Applicant’s amendments to the drawings overcome the drawing objections of the previous Office Action. Therefore, the drawing objections of the previous Office Action are withdrawn.
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 and 3-16 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 has been amended to define both “a mushroom head reinforcement made of wood-based material” as well as “the base body is a biaxially load-bearing timber component,” which renders the claimed invention indefinite. Applicant argues that the terms “wood-based” and “biaxially load-bearing timber component” comprise of special definitions within the originally filed specification; however, such definitions are contradictory to one another and confuses one as to what scope is covered by such limitations. Paragraph 21 of the specification defines “the term wood-based material used here means a material that is produced from joined, shredded wood, for example by gluing,” and goes on to say “wood-based materials in which the chopped wood structural elements are arranged cross-wise are biaxially load-bearing.” However, paragraph 20 of the specification discloses “the term component or timber component used here means an element suitable for timber construction made of wood, including wood-based material, solid wood or round timber” and paragraph 31 of the specification teaches that “the forces acting on the base body are therefore transferred in two essentially perpendicular directions arranged in one plane,” where a solid wood component, such as taught in KR ‘181 as explained below and in the previous Office Action, would be considered to meet the definition of such a biaxially load-bearing timber component as defined since it is configured to support forces in two essentially perpendicular directions of the plane of the solid wood material. Applicant goes on to argue that cross laminated timber is covered by both “wood-based” and “biaxially load-bearing timber component” limitations; however, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand a cross-laminated timber product is formed from stacking solid wood boards on top of one another in alternating 90 degree directions and bonded together, where although such solid wood boards are joined together with, for example, glue, such wood is not shredded and thus not considered “wood-based” as presently explicitly defined in the specification. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would not know whether a special definition is required for the terms “wood-based” and “biaxially load-bearing timber component” and if so what specific materials are required to meet both of the definitions of “wood-based” and “biaxially load-bearing timber component,” where the claim limitations, in view of the specification passages, would suggest that only plywood with shredded wood elements glued together can be used for the base body and mushroom head reinforcement elements while Applicant argues that a broader interpretation including plywood and CLT can be used to meet such limitations. Applicant must either clarify the claim limitations as to what materials are to be used for such a mushroom head reinforcement in the claimed invention or clarify the specification passages as to what special definition, if there is one, for such limitations. For examining purposes and in light of the specification and drawings, such limitations are considered met by shredded wood or solid wood placed in cross-wise directions and glued together so as to form CLT with solid wood pieces glued together or plywood with shredded wood pieces glued together. Moreover, claims 3-16 are rendered indefinite for depending upon claim 1.
Claim 16 depends from claim 2, which is cancelled, thus rendering the claimed invention indefinite. For examining purposes and in light of the specification and drawings, claim 16 is considered to depend from claim 1.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 4, 6-9, and 12-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR ‘181 (KR 20100006181) in view of Goto (U.S. Patent 5,823,701) and Guillard (WO 2022/034271).
Regarding claim 1, KR ‘181 discloses a mushroom head reinforcement (#40; see figure 14b) made of wood material (the English translation teaches such a reinforcement #40 is formed of wood as is the rest of the structure of figure 15b) for supporting and/or carrying timber building panels in building structures (see figure 15b), comprising a base body (#40) with an upper surface (the upper horizontal surface of figure 14b), a lower surface (the lower horizontal surface of figure 14b) facing away from the upper surface (see figure 14b), and an opening (#42) extending from the upper surface to the lower surface (see figure 14b), and wherein the base body is a load-bearing timber component (such a body #40 is formed from wood and is configured to be load bearing).
However, KR ‘181 does not disclose the body comprises a cavity or several cavities at least partially limited by a closed boundary and configured to be filled with adhesive. It is highly well known in the art, as evidenced by Goto, that when wood products are to be attached to one another, such as when one element #10a is to rest on top of another element #11a, a cavity #13a is provided in one element #11a and a cavity #12a is provided within the other #10a in order to receive a connector #1a that is configured to receive an adhesive agent that is to fill the respective cavities and connect the elements to one another. See figure 10 and col. 18, l. 56 to col. 19, l. 15. Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided a cavity(ies) on the surfaces #41 of the reinforcement #40 of KR ‘181 that are configured to receive adhesive, as taught in Goto, in order to provide a stronger connection between the reinforcement and the support structure to be attached thereto.
Furthermore, though KR ‘181 discloses such a mushroom head element can be formed from wood, KR ‘181 does not specifically disclose the base body of such a head is formed from a biaxially load-bearing timber component so as to be a wood-based mushroom head element as is understood as explained above. However, it is highly well known in the art, as evidenced by Guillard, that timber frame buildings and structures can be formed with frames formed of solid timber, cross-laminated timber (CLT) or glued laminated timber, where the frame #10 of the building is made of wood comprising of vertical posts and horizontal beams/stringers #11, where the term “made by wood” for the frame means made of solid wood, CLT, glue laminated timber or a combination of these materials. See the top of page 4 of the English translation. CLT is a common structural wood material that is comparable to concrete and steel in strength and thus it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substituted the solid wood material of KR ‘181 for CLT, as taught in Guillard, in order to provide a stronger material for such areas to support the beams therefrom and also since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960).
Regarding claim 3, KR ‘181 in view of Goto and Guillard render obvious the cavity or cavities is/are formed as a recess of the upper surface, and wherein the closed boundary is formed by a lateral wall of the respective recess (as depicted in figure 10 of Goto, the cavity is formed from a closed boundary so that the adhesive does not travel to any other portion of the upper surface, where such features would be provided within KR ‘181 as explained above and thus would comprise of a lateral wall between the adhesive cavity and the opening #42 as defined).
Regarding claim 4, KR ‘181 in view of Goto and Guillard render obvious the cavity or cavities is/are each limited by a closed boundary arranged on the upper surface of the base body (as depicted in figure 10 of Goto, the cavity is formed from a closed boundary so that the adhesive does not travel to any other portion of the upper surface, where such features would be provided within KR ‘181 as explained above).
Regarding claim 6, KR ‘181 in view of Goto and Guillard render obvious a plurality of cavities wherein the closed boundary of each cavity forms a barrier to the opening as well as a barrier to the other cavities (Goto depicts in the figures, such as in figures 21 and 22, that when multiple cavities are provided, such cavities can be separate from one another so as to comprise of a closed boundary for each cavity such that the adhesive does not travel between the cavities, where it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included a plurality of such cavities, one on each surface #41 of the body #40 of KR ‘181, as taught in Goto, in order to allow structural elements to be supported and connected on either side of the body #40).
Regarding claim 7, KR ‘181 in view of Goto and Guillard render obvious the upper surface and the lower surface are arranged substantially parallel to each other (see figure 14b of KR ‘181, where such surfaces are parallel horizontal surfaces).
Regarding claim 8, KR ‘181 in view of Goto and Guillard render obvious the cavity or multiple cavities have a minimum depth of 1 mm, 2 mm, 3 mm, or 5 mm (Goto discloses in col. 19, ll. 64-67 that the depth of such holes is 5 cm, and thus greater than the minimum depths as defined, where such features would be provided within KR ‘181 as explained above).
Regarding claim 9, KR ‘181 in view of Goto and Guillard render obvious the cavity or cavities comprises a plurality of segments which are separated from each other, each segment being arranged to receive an adhesive to form a planar adhesive layer (Goto depicts in the figures, such as in figures 21 and 22, that when multiple cavities are provided, such cavities can be separate segments from one another so as to comprise of a closed boundary for each cavity such that the adhesive does not travel between the cavities, where it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included a plurality of such cavities, one on each surface #41 of the body #40 of KR ‘181, as taught in Goto, in order to allow structural elements to be supported and connected on either side of the body #40).
Regarding claim 12, KR ‘181 in view of Goto and Guillard render obvious the method of making a point-supported floor ceiling system, comprising the steps of:
erection of one or more support pillars (KR ‘181; #1) comprising an upper tapered portion (the tapered portion above enlarged portion #43 of KR ‘181 which is to fit within the opening #42 of the body #40; see figure 15b) and a shoulder (KR ‘181; #43) surrounding the tapered portion (see figure 15b of KR ‘181);
mounting of a biaxially supporting mushroom head reinforcement made of wood-based material as explained above in the rejection of claim 1 on the support pillar so that the tapered portion of the support pillar extends through the opening and so that the mushroom head reinforcement rests on the shoulder (see figure 15b of KR ‘181 and the rejection of claim 1 above);
placement of a timber floor ceiling panel (KR ‘181; #2) on the mushroom head reinforcement (see figure 15b of KR ‘181), the timber floor ceiling having at least one transverse fill opening (the fill openings can be considered opening #14 of figure 10 of Goto which would be added to the panel #2 of KR ‘181 as explained above, where such a fill opening is transverse to the vent opening #12a) and at least one transverse vent opening (the vent opening can be considered opening #12a of figure 10 of the Goto, which would be added to the panel #2 of KR ‘181 as explained above, where such an opening would extend transverse to the length direction of the panel #2), and wherein the at least one fill opening and the at least one vent opening of the timber floor ceiling panel are arranged such that the respective fill opening and vent opening each open into a same cavity of the mushroom head reinforcement (see figures 9 and 10 of Goto, where the vent and fill openings are to be aligned with and open into the openings of the cavity, #13a, which would be provided within the mushroom body of KR ‘181 as explained above), when the timber floor ceiling panel of the mushroom head reinforcement is placed on top;
filling the cavity or cavities with adhesive through the at least one fill opening so that the cavity or cavities are completely filled with adhesive (adhesive is fed through opening #14 and opening #7 of connector #1 of Goto so as to exit ends #4 so as to completely fill the groove with adhesive, where such features would be provided within KR ‘181 as explained above);
curing without the application of pressure of the adhesive in the cavity or in the cavities (the adhesive of KR ‘181 in view of Goto would be allowed to harden, where further pressure into the adhesive is not required during such a curing phase as the adhesive is filled into the space until the adhesive exits the opening #14 and allowed to harden after the filling step).
Regarding claim 13, KR ‘181 in view of Goto and Guillard render obvious one or more cavities is/are each divided into a plurality of segments which are separated from one another (Goto depicts in the figures, such as in figures 21 and 22, that when multiple cavities are provided, such cavities can be separate segments from one another so as to comprise of a closed boundary for each cavity such that the adhesive does not travel between the cavities, where it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included a plurality of such cavities, one on each surface #41 of the body #40 of KR ‘181, as taught in Goto, in order to allow structural elements to be supported and connected on either side of the body #40 and thus form separate segments as defined).
Regarding claim 14, KR ‘181 in view of Goto and Guillard render obvious each cavity or each segment of a cavity is filled through a single fill opening arranged in a central region of the cavity or segment and wherein each cavity or each segment of a cavity is vented through a plurality of vent openings arranged in the peripheral regions of the cavity or segment (figure 4 of Goto depicts that one of such cavities can be formed so as to receive two connectors #1 so as to comprise of a central cavity #13’ which opens to a partially bounded cavity area with a top vent opening and side vent opening #16 so as to allow adhesive to be filled into the fil opening #13’ when the adhesive is filled within the connector #1 and then vent out through the top and side openings #16, where such features would be provided within KR ‘181 in order to increase the strength of the connection between the mushroom reinforcement and the panel).
Regarding claim 15, KR ‘181 in view of Goto and Guillard render obvious the adhesive is a casting resin (col. 43, ll. 3-8 of Goto disclose an epoxy resin is used for such an adhesive, where such features would be provided within KR ‘181 as explained above) having a dynamic viscosity of 25,000 mPa-s up to 100,000 mPa-s (The present specification disclose such a casting resin can comprise of epoxy resin, where col. 43, ll. 3-8 of Goto specifically discloses that epoxy resin can be used for such a casting resin. Col. 10, ll. 1-7 of Goto disclose the viscosity of the adhesive agent can be high and thus it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have constructed the dynamic viscosity of the casting resin of KR ‘181 in view of Goto to be within the range as defined in order to prevent runny adhesive that would run off the edges of the application area and to allow the adhesive to hold its shape while it cures and also since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960).).
Regarding claim 16, KR ‘181 in view of Goto and Guillard render obvious the cavity or cavities is/are formed as a recess of the upper surface, and wherein the closed boundary is formed by a lateral wall of the respective recess (as depicted in figure 10 of Goto, the cavity is formed from a closed boundary so that the adhesive does not travel to any other portion of the upper surface, where such features would be provided within KR ‘181 as explained above and thus would comprise of a lateral wall between the adhesive cavity and the opening #42 as defined).
Claim(s) 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR ‘181 in view of Goto, Guillard, and Wu et al. (WO 2020/243809).
Regarding claim 10, KR ‘181 in view of Goto and Guillard render obvious a system comprising a biaxially load-bearing mushroom head reinforcement as explained above in the rejection of claim 1, a support pillar (KR ‘181; #1), and a biaxially load-bearing timber floor ceiling panel (KR ‘181 discloses a floor ceiling panel #2 where although KR ‘181 does not specifically disclose use of a biaxially load-bearing timber material as explained above, Wu et al. teach the obviousness of using CLT for such floor/ceiling panels in place of conventional concrete slab and beam floors and it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used CLT for such ceiling panels of KR ‘181 in order to provide a stronger panel and also since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960).),
wherein the support pillar comprises a first portion (KR ‘181; #43) having a first cross-sectional area (figure 15b of KR ‘181 depicts the portion #43 comprises of a larger cross-sectional area than the opening #42 of the body #40 so that the body can rest thereupon) and a second tapered portion (the smaller cross section of the pillar #1 which is to fit within the opening #42 of KR ‘181) which is smaller than the first cross-sectional area (see figure 15b of KR ‘181), the second tapered portion being dimensioned to match and extend through the opening of the mushroom head reinforcement (see figure 15b of KR ‘181), and wherein the second tapered portion is surrounded by a shoulder formed by the first portion (the top surface of element #43 of KR ‘181 is considered the shoulder which the body #40 is to rest upon), wherein at least a portion of the lower surface of the mushroom head reinforcement rests on the shoulder when the mushroom head reinforcement and support pillar are assembled so that the shoulder supports the mushroom head reinforcement (see figure 15b of KR ‘181), and
wherein the timber floor ceiling panel comprises one or more transverse fill openings (the fill opening can be considered opening #12a of figure 10 of the Goto, which would be added to the panel #2 of KR ‘181 as explained above, where such an opening would extend transverse to the length direction of the panel #2) and one or more transverse vent openings (the vent openings can be considered opening #14 of figure 10 of Goto which would be added to the panel #2 of KR ‘181 as explained above, where such a vent opening is transverse to the fill opening #12a), wherein fill openings and vent openings are aligned such that in the assembled system at least one fill opening and at least one vent opening open into the same cavity of the mushroom head reinforcement (see figures 9 and 10 of Goto, where the vent and fill openings are to be aligned with and open into the openings of the cavity, #13a, which would be provided within the mushroom body of KR ‘181 as explained above).
Regarding claim 11, KR ‘181 in view of Goto, Guillard, and Wu et al. render obvious the support pillar is made of a wood-based material or of a solid wood (the English translation of KR ‘181 discloses the entire system, including the pillar #1, is formed of wood, where Guillard teaches the obviousness of using CLT wood-based material for such pillars as well).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07/02/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding Applicant’s arguments that the present specification discloses specific definitions for timber component and “biaxially load-bearing,” if view of the 112(b) issues above, the claims are interpreted to require shredded wood or solid wood placed in cross-wise directions and glued together so as to form CLT with solid wood pieces glued together or plywood with shredded wood pieces glued together in order to meet such limitations, where the prior art of record has been modified to meet such amendments and arguments as presented.
Regarding Applicant’s arguments that Goto discloses cylindrical holes bored into solid timber, where “there is no surface cavity,” Goto explicitly discloses a cavity #13a is provided in one element #11a and a cavity #12a is provided within the other #10a in order to receive a connector #1a that is configured to receive an adhesive agent that is to fill the respective cavities and connect the elements to one another. See figure 10 and col. 18, l. 56 to col. 19, l. 15. The cavity must extend through the surface in order to allow for proper receiving of the dowel and adhesive material.
In response to applicant's argument that KR ‘181 and Goto are nonanalogous art, it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, Goto specifically teaches such adhesive connection types are used for connecting inter-woods, inter-laminated woods and other structural members of an assembly, where KR ’181 comprises one such type of wood structural assembly which could benefit from the increased connection strength from such types of connections and is considered in the same wood structural system art and thus such references are considered analogous art.
Regarding Applicant’s arguments that “KR ‘181’s components are explicitly formed from metal,” Applicant appears to point to a section of KR ‘181 that relates to a protective cap #11 and nothing with regards to the element #40 equated to the mushroom head in the rejections. The English translation teaches such a reinforcement #40 is formed of wood as is the rest of the structure of figure 15b, such as in page 6 of the English translation, which discloses such a head #40 is mounted and inserted into support #21 without the need to cut and process wood of the elements. Thus, such a solid wood element would be modified to comprise of CLT, as taught in Guillard, and meet such limitations for the material of the reinforcement head as explained above
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). Applicant argues that hindsight reasoning is provided for the motivation to provide such a cavity and adhesive of Goto to KR ‘181; however, col. 12, ll. 6-24 of Goto explicitly teaches why such a connection with both the mechanical dowel and adhesive provides for a stronger, improved connection between wood elements and thus such a modification of KR ‘181 in view of Goto takes into account knowledge already known in the art. The rejections are thus considered proper and are upheld.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THEODORE V ADAMOS whose telephone number is (571)270-1166. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9-5.
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, Brian D Mattei can be reached at (571) 270-3238. 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.
/THEODORE V ADAMOS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3635
Prosecution Insights