DETAILED ACTION
The communication dated 6/30/2026 has been entered and fully considered. Claims 1-58 are canceled. Claims 59-64 are amended. Claims 65-73 are new. Claims 59-73 are pending.
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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues that prior art GORDON does not teach the use of multiple suction heads to suction pulp slurry.
Applicant’s arguments, see REMARKS, filed 6/30/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 59-64 under 102 and 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of COMSTOCK (US 2923654 A).
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 59-73 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 59 recites the limitation " an output device configured to output the molded parts from the suction tool" in in reference to the "at least on suction tool". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
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) 59, 61-63, and 65-73 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over GORDON (US 20150204020 A1) in view of COMSTOCK (US 2923654 A).
For claim 59, GORDON teaches a method and system that form a molded part made from wood fiber [0015] or other environmentally friendly fibers [0009]. GORDON teaches the system uses a pulp holding tank (pulp reservoir) to hold liquid fiber [0068]. The examiner notes the wood is a degradable fiber source. This teaches the limitation of “A system for forming molded parts, comprising at least one first pulp reservoir containing at least one first pulp as a liquid solution with an environmentally friendly, degradable fiber material”. GORDON teaches a movement device that lifts and moves the molds [0065] and a vacuum device [0026] integrated into a mesh. This teaches the limitation of “at least one movement device; at least one suction tool attached to the at least movement device”.
GORDON teaches the mold is immersed into the fiber slurry [0148] and multiple layers are applied onto the molded part [0069]. The part is then ejected from the mold device [0154]. GORDON teaches a control device is used to control heating, pressure (vacuum) [0148], and movement [0163]. This teaches the limitation of “wherein the suction side is configured to form the molded part during application of negative pressure in the suction head while the at least one suction tool at least partially immerses the plurality of suction heads simultaneously in the at least one first pulp; an application station, wherein the application station is configured to apply one or more functional layers on surfaces of the molded parts formed by the at least one suction tool; an output device configured to output the molded parts from the suction tool; and a control device configured to control the at least one movement device, the at least one suction tool, and the application station”.
GORDON does not teach the use of multiple individual suction heads but instead uses a mesh where the gaps in the mesh withdraw a vacuum. COMSTOCK similar to GORDON teaches the use of a suction tool with a mesh in front of a mold that is immersed into a fiber stock slurry [column 1 line 67-column 2 line 3]. COMSTOCK also teaches the suction is applied by a pressure distribution head that event spreads the suction across multiple holes (heads) [column 6 line 5 and Fig 9]. The suction tools are mounted on a rotary system allowing for simultaneous production formation [Fig 1]. This teaches the limitation of “wherein the at least one suction tool is a multi- tool having a plurality of suction heads for forming a plurality of molded parts simultaneously and each suction head having a three-dimensionally shaped suction side adapted to a contour of a corresponding molded part to be molded by the suction head”. COMSTOCK teaches the configuration allows for built up fibers to be dislodged easily without disruptive effect [column 10 line 49]. It would be obvious to one skilled in the arts to substitute the multiple suction heads of COMSTOCK into the GORDON suction tool to improve the system. One would be motivated to combine the art based on the added benefit of the easy cleaning of the system by dislodging, as taught by COMSTOCK.
For claim 61, GORDON and COMSTOCK teach the system of claim 59, as above. GORDON teaches the pulp mold is heated and pressurized to remove moisture [0015]. This teaches the limitation of “further comprising: a hot-pressing station for hot-pressing the molded parts, wherein the hot-pressing station is configured to apply a pressure at a hot-pressing temperature”.
For claim 62, GORDON and COMSTOCK teach the system of claim 59, as above. GORDON teaches a curing station for use between pre-moulding and moulding [0026 and 0168]. This teaches the limitation of “further comprising: a conditioning station for conditioning a surface of the molded parts before applying the functional layers”.
For claim 63, GORDON and COMSTOCK teach the system of claim 59, as above. GORDON teaches the use of two slurry reservoirs with the same mesh carrier [Fig 13 and 0168]. COMSTOCK teaches the suction tools are mounted on a rotary system allowing for simultaneous product formation [Fig 1]. This allows for simultaneous immersions in both tanks. This teaches the limitation of “wherein the application station includes at least one second pulp reservoir containing at least one second pulp, wherein the at least one movement device is configured to move the at least one suction tool such that the plurality of suction heads of the at least one suction tool is at least partially immersed simultaneously in the second pulp while the molded parts from the first pulp are on the suction head to apply the functional layers to the molded parts”.
For claim 65, GORDON and COMSTOCK teach the system of claim 59, as above. GORDON teaches the tank has an open top and is horizontal [Fig 11]. This teaches the limitation of “wherein the at least one pulp reservoir is a horizontal reservoir having an open top”.
For claim 66, GORDON and COMSTOCK teach the system of claim 65, as above. COMSTOCK teaches the suction tool with multiple heads is submersed into the reservoir simultaneously [Fig 1]. This teaches the limitation of “wherein the at least one movement device at least partially immerses the plurality of suction heads simultaneously into the at least one first pulp through the open top of the horizontal reservoir”.
For claim 67, GORDON and COMSTOCK teach the system of claim 59, as above. GORDON teaches the formation of a pre-mold in the system [abstract]. GORDON teaches the pulp mold is heated and pressurized to remove moisture [0015]. This teaches the limitation of “further comprising: a prepressing station configured to preform the molded parts by applying a prepressing pressure to reduce a proportion of the liquid solution in the molded parts and to stabilize a shape of the molded parts”.
For claim 68, GORDON and COMSTOCK teach the system of claim 67, as above. GORDON teaches the use of a stationary pressing section with a matching male and female mold form that has suction heads to remove the molded part [0152]. This teaches the limitation of “wherein the prepressing station includes a stationary prepressing lower tool, the prepressing tool comprising multiple pressing surfaces extending from a carrier plate of the prepressing lower tool in at least one direction, the pressing surfaces being adapted to the at least one suction tool that molds the molded parts, wherein the at least one suction tool is pressed onto the stationary prepressing lower tool, and wherein the prepressing station is arranged separately from a downstream hot-pressing station”.
For claim 69, GORDON and COMSTOCK teach the system of claim 67, as above. GORDON teaches the movement device moves the preform from the reservoir to the press [Fig 11]. This teaches the limitation of “wherein the at least one movement device is configured to move the at least one suction tool between the at least one pulp reservoir and the prepressing station”.
For claim 70, GORDON and COMSTOCK teach the system of claim 67, as above. GORDON teaches the prepressing tool uses suction of the formation process to hold the pre-press form in place. This teaches the limitation of “wherein the at least one suction tool is configured to apply the prepressing pressure on the molded parts against a prepressing tool of the prepressing station”.
For claim 71, GORDON and COMSTOCK teach the system of claim 59, as above. COMSTOCK teaches the movement device moves freely with the suction tool attached [Fig 1]. This teaches the limitation of “wherein the at least one movement device is configured to move freely in space with the at least one suction tool attached to the movement device”.
For claim 72, GORDON and COMSTOCK teach the system of claim 71, as above. COMSTOCK teaches the use of a robot arm that moves freely and holds the suction tool [Fig 1]. This teaches the limitation of “wherein the at least one movement device includes a robot arm configured to move freely in space with the at least one suction tool attached to the robot arm”.
For claim 73, GORDON and COMSTOCK teach the system of claim 71, as above. COMSTOCK teaches the robot arm movement device moves the molded article throughout the process [Fig 1]. This teaches the limitation of “wherein the at least one movement device is configured to move the
Claim(s) 60 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over GORDON (US 20150204020 A1) in view of TSUURA (US 20030150582 A1).
For claim 60, GORDON and COMSTOCK teach the system of claim 59, as above. GORDON teaches the formation of a pre-mold in the system [abstract]. This teaches the limitation of “further comprising: a pre-molding station for pre-molding the molded parts”. GORDON does not teach the pre-press temperature. TSUURA teaches a similar pulp molding system and method that uses a laminate preform [abstract and 0043]. TSUURA further teaches the preform is formed in ambient conditions without heat [0070]. This teaches the limitation of “wherein the pre-molding station is configured to apply a pre-pressing pressure on the at least one molded parts at room temperature”. TSUURA teaches the additive method can allow for specific characteristics for individual layers [0056]. It would be obvious to one skilled in the arts at the time of invention to apply the ambient additive technique of TSUURA into the GORDON process to improve the process. One would be motivated to combine the art based on the added benefit of a specialized characteristic for each layer, as taught by TSUURA.
Claim(s) 64 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over GORDON (US 20150204020 A1) in view of SALM (US 20070034346 A1).
For claim 64, GORDON and COMSTOCK teach the system of claim 59, as above. GORDON teaches the formation unit can apply an intermediate layer of adhesive between laminate layers [0171] and other additives to the layers [0172]. GORDON does not specify the use of wax. SALM teaches a similar pulp moulding process that includes adhesive and a topical additive for the different parts of the pulp surface [0028]. SALM teaches wax can be used as a paper additive [0028]. This teaches the limitation of “wherein the application station is configured to apply at least one functional layer as a wax on an inner surface of at least one of the molded parts formed by the at least one suction tool”. SALM teaches the additive solution application can apply waterproofing [0028]. It would be obvious to one skilled in the arts to substitute the wax additive of SALM into the method of GORDON. One would be motivated to combine the art based on the added benefit of water proofing as taught by SALM.
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 STEPHEN M RUSSELL whose telephone number is (571)272-6907. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri: 7:30 to 4:30 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, 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.
/S.M.R./Examiner, Art Unit 1748
/JACOB T MINSKEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1748
Prosecution Insights