DETAILED ACTION
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 Amendment
Amendments to the claims, filed on 7/14/25, have been entered in the above-identified application.
Any rejections made in the previous action, and not repeated below, are hereby withdrawn.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
Claims 1, 6, 7, 10, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Thole et al (US 2018/0334777 A1).
Regarding claims 1, 6, and 7, Thole teaches a molded cellulose foam having an open-cell structure interior formed from molded cellulose foam; wherein the molded cellulose foam comprises a pulped fiber component (e.g., wood fiber), at least one foaming agent (e.g., protein), wherein the pulped fiber component and the at least one foaming agent, are uniformly dispersed throughout a matrix (e.g., mixed); wherein the pulped fiber component is wood fiber; wherein the molded cellulose foam comprises polyvinyl alcohol, a native starch, or alginate; wherein the molded cellulose foam comprises a moisture resistant additive (e.g., wax, (i.e., wax emulsion)) uniformly dispersed throughout the matrix (e.g., mixed) (para 1, 2, 11, 14-16, 22, 29-33, 40, 42, 44-45, 50-54). Thole teaches the use of emulsions and wax as a moisture resistant additive (para 40, 44-45) which would have allowed one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to an once envisage that of a wax emulsion.
Regarding the limitations “having a surface fiber layer formed from the molded cellulose foam;” “wherein the surface fiber layer is formed from the molded cellulose foam that is the same molded cellulose foam used to form the open-cell structure interior;” and “wherein the surface fiber layer has a greater density than the open-cell structure interior;” Thole teaches the composition of the instant claims. In addition, Thole teaches the process by which the embodiment of the instant claims is made (e.g., at a pressure of 2 to 8 bar or positive pressure in the mold) (para 16) (see instant specification, para 62).
Therefore, Thole is deemed to inherently possess the structure of these limitations. As stated in In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255 (CCPA 1977): Where, as here, the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, the PTO can require an applicant to prove that the prior art products do not necessarily or inherently possess the characteristics of his claimed product. [citation omitted] Whether the rejection is based on "inherency" under 35 U.S.C. § 102, on "prima facie obviousness" under 35 U.S.C. § 103, jointly or alternatively, the burden of proof is the same, and its fairness is evidenced by the PTO's inability to manufacture products or to obtain and compare prior art.
Regarding claims 10 and 11, Thole teaches its foam moldings are used in the packaging industry, for acoustic insulation, and for thermal insulation (para 2).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 2-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thole as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Stevens (US 2016/0368186 A1) and Malinowski et al (US 2019/0328083 A1).
Thole teaches the molded cellulose foam of claim 1. Thole further teaches the cellulose foam comprises a pulped fiber component (e.g., wood fiber), at least one foaming agent (e.g., protein), and polyvinyl alcohol, a native starch, or alginate (para 11, 14-16, 29-30, 42-44).
Thole fails to suggest wherein the surface fiber layer has a thickness of approximately 100 to 200 µm. However, Thole teaches its molded cellulose foam is made in a mold under pressure (i.e., compression molding)(para 16).
Stevens teaches it was known in the art at the time of invention that skins (i.e., surface fiber layers) form on lignin starch based foam during compression molding; wherein skins with a thickness of around 100 µm have been achieved (para 18-19, 106).
Malinowski suggests methods for compression molding foam articles (e.g., comprising cellulosic material); wherein compression molding of the foam preform in the compression mold can result in a skin forming on the final compression molded foam component; and by controlling the temperature of the mold and composition and/or the time the composition spends in the mold, a desired amount of the closed cell structures of the foam are collapsed (i.e., skin formation) (para 89, 300).
Therefore, per the teachings of Stevens and Malinowski, formation of a skin during the compression molding of a cellulose foam was a known phenomenon. Furthermore, per the teachings of Malinowski, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to adjust the temperature of the mold and/or the composition of the foam in the mold as well as the time the composition is spent in the mold to control the amount of the closed cell structures of the foam that collapse that form the skin layer, and therein the thickness of the skin layer (i.e., surface fiber layer).
Claims 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thole as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Strimling et al (US 2023/0416504 A1).
Thole teaches the molded cellulose foam of claim 1.
Thole fails to suggest wherein the molded cellulose foam comprises a moisture resistant outer coating applied as a surface moisture barrier; wherein the moisture resistant outer coating is at least one of a plastic film, a wax, AKD, ASA, or a chemically modified carbohydrate.
Strimling teaches a molded cellulose foam having a surface fiber layer (e.g., skins made of paper) and an open-cell structure interior formed from a molded cellulose foam (e.g., open-cell structure of cellulose insulative material) (abstract, para 11, 13, 17, 25); wherein the molded cellulose foam comprises a pulped fiber component (e.g., recycled kraft fiber (i.e., wood fibers) and agricultural fiber residuals (i.e., crop fibers)), at least one foaming agent (gelatin (i.e., protein)); wherein the pulped fiber component and the at least one foaming agent are uniformly dispersed (mixed) throughout a matrix (para 9, 11, 21, 26). Strimling further teaches the molded cellulose foam comprises a moisture resistant outer coating applied as a surface moisture barrier; wherein the moisture resistant outer coating is at least one of a wax, AKD, or ASA (para 27).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to use the moisture resistant outer coating of Strimling on the molded cellulose foam of Thole for a molded cellulose foam with a surface moisture barrier.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/14/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant contends that the prior art of record, either alone or in combination, fails to suggest wherein the surface fiber layer has a greater density than the open-cell structure interior.” This is not persuasive.
Thole teaches the composition of the instant claims. In addition, Thole teaches the process by which the embodiment of the instant claims is made (e.g., at a pressure of 2 to 8 bar or positive pressure in the mold) (para 16) (see instant specification, para 62).
Therefore, Thole is deemed to inherently possess this structure. As stated in In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255 (CCPA 1977): Where, as here, the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, the PTO can require an applicant to prove that the prior art products do not necessarily or inherently possess the characteristics of his claimed product. [citation omitted] Whether the rejection is based on "inherency" under 35 U.S.C. § 102, on "prima facie obviousness" under 35 U.S.C. § 103, jointly or alternatively, the burden of proof is the same, and its fairness is evidenced by the PTO's inability to manufacture products or to obtain and compare prior art.
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 NATHAN L VAN SELL whose telephone number is (571)270-5152. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thur, Generally 7am-6pm.
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, M. Veronica Ewald can be reached at 571-272-8519. 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.
NATHAN VAN SELL
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1783
/NATHAN L VAN SELL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1783