DETAILED ACTION
The communication dated 1/12/2026 has been entered and fully considered. Claims 1-44 are canceled. Claims 45 and 59 are amended. Claims 44-64 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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group 1, claims 45-58, in the reply filed on 1/12/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that claims 45 is amended to depend on non-elected claim 59. This is not found persuasive as the system could be used without immersing the section tool because the system only requires the capability of completing the step not the action of completing the step.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
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.
Claim(s) 59, 61, 62 and 63 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by GORDON (US 20150204020 A1).
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. The examiner notes the suction tool integrated into a mesh has multiple heads. This teaches the limitation of “a movement device; a suction tool attached to the movement device, wherein the suction tool is a multi- tool having a plurality of suction heads”. GORDON teaches the use of multiple suction heads to allow for pulp distribution throughout the mold [0166]. This teaches the limitation of “each suction head having a three-dimensionally shaped suction side adapted to a contour of a molded part to be molded by the suction head, and”. 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 movement device at least partially immerses the suction head in the 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 suction tool; an output device configured to output the molded parts from the suction tool; and a control device configured to control the movement device, the suction tool, and the application station”.
For claim 61, GORDON teaches 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 part, wherein the hot-pressing station is configured to apply a pressure at a hot-pressing temperature”.
For claim 62, GORDON teaches 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 part before applying the functional layers”.
For claim 63, GORDON teaches the system of claim 59, as above. GORDON teaches the use of two slurry reservoirs with the same mesh carrier [Fig 13 and 0168]. This teaches the limitation of “wherein the application station includes at least one second pulp reservoir containing at least one second pulp, wherein the movement device is configured to move the suction tool such that the suction head of the suction tool is at least partially immersed in the second pulp while the molded part from the first pulp is on the suction head to apply the functional layers to the molded part”.
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) 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 teaches 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 part”. 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 molded part 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 teaches 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 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
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
/Abbas Rashid/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1748