Detailed Action
The communications received 06/15/2026 have been filed and considered by the Examiner. Claims 56-61 and 68-75 are pending.
Election/Restrictions
Claims 48-55 and 62-67 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected a method for manufacturing modified parts form a biodegradable fiber material without the 3D shaped suction head and the fiber molding system, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 06/15/2026.
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 56-61 in the reply filed on 06/15/2026 is acknowledged.
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 .
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.
Claim(s) 56-61, 68-71, and 75 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sato et al (US 2003/0111201 cited by the Applicant in the IDS filed 04/12/2022) hereinafter SAT.
As for claim 56, SAT teaches a method for manufacturing molded parts from biodegradable fiber material [Abstract], the method comprising:
providing a pulp as a liquid solution containing the biodegradable fiber material [Fig. 26(a) #4a; 0260];
contacting a suction tool with the pulp by at least partially dipping immersing the suction tool into the pulp, wherein the suction tool includes a suction head with a three-dimensionally shaped suction side [Fig. 26(a) #610a; 0260];
creating a formed part by establishing negative pressure in the suction tool to draw the biodegradable fiber material onto the three-dimensionally shaped suction side of the suction head [0260];
pre-pressing the formed part in a pre-pressing station with a pre-pressing pressure to create a pre-pressed molded part (pressing the part into the mold of Fig. 26(c-e)); and
hot-pressing the pre-pressed molded part with a hot-pressing pressure to create a finished molded part (as heat is applied via an electrical heater) [Fig. 26(g-j)].
As for claim 57, SAT teaches claim 56 and wherein the formed part is retained on the suction tool during the pre-pressing [Fig. 26(c-g)].
As for claim 58, SAT teaches claim 56 and wherein the pre-pressing includes performing membrane pressing wherein a pre-pressing lower tool includes a membrane, and wherein the pre-pressing pressure is applied to the membrane as gas pressure (as the mold expands and substantially is a membrane type) [0270].
As for claim 59, SAT teaches claim 56 and that the drying with a hot-press is performed to a prescribed temperature [0269] done in accordance to the size, shape, and material of the molded article [0132]. In comparison, SAT does not teach a temperature being applied in the pre-pressing step (the dewatering female mold used has no heating applied) [Fig. 26(c-e) #621; 0262-265]. Therefore one of ordinary skill would arrive to the conclusion that the operation of the mold would occur near room temperature that is at most heated by the nearby equipment and therefore be under the limitation of 80 degrees Celsius.
As for claim 60, SAT teaches claim 56 and as the second part of the phase has the pressing from the suction tool occur similarly to the previous part while also including steam action, it is understood that the hot-pressing pressure applied is greater than the pre-pressing [0269-271].
As for claim 61, SAT teaches claim 60 and teaches that a fluid used for expanding the membrane therefore the pressure applied is between 0.1 to 2.0 MPa which overlaps the claimed pre-pressing pressure of 0.2-0.3 N/mm^2 which is equal to 0.2-0.3 MPa [0233], therefore with the addition of the pressure caused by steam one of ordinary skill in the art would view the range as greater than 0.1 MPa which overlaps the claimed range of 0.5-1.5 MPa.
As for claim 68, SAT teaches claim 56 and the shape of the suction side is generally the contour of the subsequently created formed part [Fig. 26(a-j) #610a and 638a compared to #639].
As for claim 69, SAT teaches claim 56, further comprising:
subsequent to the pre-pressing the formed part, transferring the pre-pressed molded part to a station for the hot-pressing using the suction tool [Fig. 26(e-g)], wherein the pre-pressed molded part is removed from the suction tool prior to the hot-pressing [Fig. 26(g)].
As for claim 70, SAT teaches claim 56 and wherein the contacting of the suction tool with the pulp includes completely submerging the suction head in the pulp [Fig. 26(a)].
As for claim 71, SAT teaches claim 56, and wherein the hot-pressing includes:
inserting the pre-pressed molded part into a hot-pressing lower tool using the suction tool [Fig. 26(g-i)];
and pressing a hot-pressing upper tool onto the hot-pressing lower tool such that the pre-pressed molded part is positioned between the hot-pressing upper tool and the hot-pressing lower tool [Fig. 26(h) #638 into 633].
As for claim 75, SAT teaches claim 56 and applying one or more functional layers to the finished molded part (post-processing coating) [0289].
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 72 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sato et al (US 2003/0111201) hereinafter SAT in view of Ruan (CN 108824094 A refer to the supplied English translation) hereinafter RUA.
As for claim 72, SAT teaches claim 71 but fails to teach that the hot pressing is applied at the claimed temperature and pressing time.
RUA teaches that when doing a heated drying of a molded part from biodegradable material that an acceptable temperature to heat 200-280 degrees Celsius for a duration of 20-30 seconds which overlaps the claimed range [3-12]. RUA teaches that this an optimal range and temperature (as the downstream features are listed as “Further optimized” therefore this must be the primary optimization) [12-13].
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have dried in the hot-pressing step using the temperature and duration of RUA in the method of SAT as RUA teaches that these parameters are optimal. As both SAT and RUA pertain to the molding of biodegradable material, they are analogous art and one of ordinary skill in the art expects success in the combination.
Claim(s) 73-74 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sato et al (US 2003/0111201) hereinafter SAT in view of Jonsson (EP 3081692 A1) hereinafter JON.
As for claim 73, SAT teaches claim 71 but does not teach wherein, during the hot-pressing, the hot-pressing upper tool is heated to a higher temperature than the hot-pressing lower tool.
JON teaches that when performing the drying step of a molding of a biodegradable substrate [Abstract], that one acceptable temperature range of the male and female die during a hot press drying lies within 160-210 degrees Celsius [0047-48].
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used the temperature range of JON to dry in the hot pressing step of SAT as JON teaches that this is an acceptable temperature for heat drying in a mold.
Therefore the male mold could be at 210 degrees Celsius and the female mold at 160 degrees Celsius which would render the male mold at a higher temperature than the female mold.
In accordance with the MPEP a selection from a finite set of identified predictable solutions with a reasonable expectation of success (such as a temperature within a range to use) amounts to an exemplary rationale of obviousness [MPEP 2143(I)(E)].
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected the upper end of the range for the male hot press mold and the lower end of the range for the female hot press mold as this would have amounted to a selection of a temperature from a finite range of temperatures with the reasonable expectation of successfully performing a heat press drying.
As for claim 74, SAT/JON teach claim 73, and in the combination as applied the difference in mold temperatures would be 50 degrees Celsius which falls within the claimed range [see claim 73 above].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Elisa Vera whose telephone number is (571)270-7414. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 - 4:30.
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, Abbas Rashid can be reached at 571-270-7457. 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.
/E.V./Examiner, Art Unit 1748
/RITA P ADHLAKHA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1711
Prosecution Insights