DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 04/20/2026 has been entered.
Claims 13-16, 18, and 33-34 are currently pending and have been fully considered.
Claims 1-12, 17, and 19-32 have been cancelled.
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.
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) 13-16, 18, and 33-34 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KANG (KR20040051186A) in view of the machine translations of KANG (KR20040051186A) and SUDO (JP2007277436A) and the machine translations of SUDO (JP2007277436A).
KANG will hereafter be referring to the machine translation of KANG.
SUDO will hereafter be referring to the machine translation of SUDO.
Regarding claim 13, KANG teaches an article prepared by mixing wasted coffee grounds and a resin and then molding the obtained articles into a desired shape.
Based on what KANG teaches on pages 2-3 and Fig 2 of the article being a building/furniture panel, the building/furniture panel would be expected to be flat and planar.
KANG teaches on page 3 and Fig 3 a flowchart illustrating a method of manufacturing an article using coffee grounds. (providing a particulate biological substrate comprising coffee grounds)
Coffee grounds 11 and resin 12 are mixed together.
SUDO also teaches in paragraphs 9 and 17 a method for producing molded product with coffee grounds and a resin.
SUDO teaches on paragraphs 12-15 and 34-35 different resins that may be used. Polystyrene is taught to be used as a resin that may be combined with coffee grounds. Polystyrene may be used in the first resin or the second resin taught in SUOD
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use polystyrene as the resin in KANG. Known Polystyrene has glass transition temperatures of greater than 20°C. (providing a thermoplastic polymer having a glass transition temperature greater than 20°C)
The motivation to use polystyrene can be found in 15 of SUDO. SUDO teaches polystyrene have excellent moldability and are relatively inexpensive.
Coffee grounds 11 and resin 12 (being polyethylene or polypropylene) are mixed together. Mixing the coffee grounds 11 and resin 12 uniformly in a mixture would be well within one of ordinary skill in the art. SUDO for example recognizes, in paragraphs 15-16 uniformly dispersing the coffee in the resin. (homogeneously mixing the substrate S and the thermoplastic polymer P to form a substrate S/polymer P mixture)
It is noted that KANG is directed toward the formation of articles that include panels. Panels are planar and it would be well within one of ordinary skill in the art to spread the mixture of coffee grounds 11 and polystyrene resin 12 prior to compression would be well within one of ordinary skill in the art.
Spreading the mixture out evenly in the production of an article that is planar like a panel would help with uniformity during compression. KANG teaches on page 3 compression using a press.
The mixture prior to compression would inherently have a first density. (spreading the substrate S/polymer P mixture into a particle layer having a first density)
When they are mixed, they are compressed using a press. The compression step would be expected to surpass that glass transition temperature of the polystyrene resin by design.
The glass transition temperature is the temperature at which the polymer is more malleable and would allow for better compression.
KANG further teaches on page 3 that the thickness and width of the panel can be adjusted as desired. Pressing the thickness of the panel down would directly affect the density of the panel. It would be well within one of ordinary skill in the art to choose to compress the panel to a thickness that also coincides to a density that is at least 1.5 times greater than the density prior to compression. (compressing the particle layer at a temperature greater than the glass transition temperature to form a thermoformable and/or embossable composite with a second density that is at least 1.5 times greater than the first density)
"[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
SUDO teaches that the water content must be managed on page
Regarding claim 14, SUDO teaches in paragraphs 16 and 24-25, mixing the coffee grounds and the resin with a comparatively high water content allows for uniform dispersing/distribution of the coffee grounds.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to adopt the technique that SUDO teaches in mixing the coffee grounds and resin in KANG.
Regarding claim 15, KANG teaches on page 3 drying the molded article.
Regarding claim 16, KANG teaches coffee grounds. Coffee grounds would naturally be expected to be in powder form. KANG teaches on page 3 coffee grounds with sizes of 0.5 to 2mm or less.
Regarding claim 18, KANG further teaches on pages 3-4 that mixing ratio of the coffee grounds 11 and resin 12 can be predetermined based on the predetermined purpose.
SUDO teaches in paragraph 11 ratio of coffee grounds to first resin is between 1:3 to 1:1. SUDO also teaches in paragraph 31 the amount of coffee grounds in the entire molded product is about 1.5 to 30% by weight.
It would be obvious to selected known ratios taught in SUDO for producing of articles in KANG with an expectation of success.
In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 33, KANG is directed toward formation of panels and after compressions, the panels would be allowed to return to a temperature under the glass transition temperature for structural stability for use as a panel.
Regarding claim 34, KANG is directed toward the formation of panels that may be for furniture and further teaches on page 3 applying wallpaper with the panels. It is further pointed out that KANG also recognizes on page 2 application of laminate material in production of particle board is known in the art.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments filed 01/21/2026, have overcome the rejection(s) of claim(s) 13-18 as being unpatentable MARTIN et al. (USPGPUB 2009/0206507) as well as claims 33-34 as being unpatentable over MARTIN et al. (USPGPUB 2009/0206507) in view of SUDO (JP2007277436A) and the machine translations of SUDO (JP2007277436A).
The previous rejections have been fully considered and have been withdrawn.
However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of KANG (KR20040051186A) in view of the machine translations of KANG (KR20040051186A) and SUDO (JP2007277436A) and the machine translations of SUDO (JP2007277436A).
KANG teaches the production of an article from the mixture of coffee grounds and a resin. KANG teaches that the article may be in the form of a panel and teaches compression with a press to form such a panel.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
CHO et al. (USPGPUB 2017/0036958) teach formation of article marble with coffee grounds and a polyester resin. CHO et al. teach that different molding conditions such as molding pressure and molding temperature affect the end product quality.
DARAKANANDA (USPGPUB 2014/0023788) teaches a process for producing artificial stone with coffee grounds and mixing in resin. DARAKANANDA teaches drying the product in an oven and to coat products with waterproof agents or resin.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MING CHEUNG PO whose telephone number is (571)270-5552. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10-6.
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, PREM SINGH can be reached at 5712726381. 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.
/MING CHEUNG PO/Examiner, Art Unit 1771
/ELLEN M MCAVOY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1771
Prosecution Insights