DETAILED ACTION
The communication dated 3/23/2026 has been entered and fully considered. Claims 1-6 are not elected. Claim 7 is amended. Claims 10-15 new. Claims 7-15 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, HARPER, does not teach the amended claim 7 or new claims 10 to 15.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 7 and 10-15 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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.
Claims 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HARPER (US 2183869) in view of KUMAMOTO (US 20010040016 A1).
For claim 7, HARPER teaches a machine for processing a fiber slurry into a pulp mold [column 1 line 2]. HARPER teaches the fiber is formed into a stock made of liquid pulp mixture [column 6 line 64]. This teaches the limitation of the instant claim “A method of producing a pulp molded product, comprising: preparing a slurry that contains pulp”. HARPER teaches the pulp is deposited onto the mould with a solid shape to form a layer [column 6 line 55]. This teaches the limitation of “depositing the pulp on a paper-making mold having a solid shape to form a pulp layer”. The pulp is then dried by pressing [column 5 line 22-26] and then dried by heating in the drying/finishing dies 4 [column 5 line 28]. HARPER teaches the mold is made of two parts, 3a and 1a [Fig 1]. This teaches the limitation of “dehydrating the pulp layer to obtain an undried intermediate molded product; and heating the undried intermediate molded product while sandwiching the intermediate molded product between a male mold and a female mold and applying pressure to the sandwiched intermediate molded product”.
HARPER does not teach the pulp fiber origins. KUMAMOTO also teaches a process to produce a pulp molded article [abstract]. Pulp is formed into a slurry with water [0026]. KUMAMOTO teaches the pulp used is made of fiber from either bamboo, softwood or hardwood [0026]. This teaches the limitation of “wherein the pulp is a softwood pulp, a hardwood pulp or a bamboo pulp”. KUMAMOTO also teaches the fiber has an average fiber length between 0.8 and 2 mm [0057]. This average fiber length range is within the instant claim range of “A method of producing a pulp molded product, comprising: preparing a slurry that contains pulp having an average fiber length of less than 3.0 mm and water”. This fiber provides the advantage of a fine structure with uniform thickness free from cracks and good surface smoothness [0059]. It would be obvious to one skilled in the arts at the time of invention to modify the process of HARPER with the fiber used in the similar process of KUMAMOTO to produce a molded fiber product. One would be motivated to combine the art based on the added benefit of a fine structure with uniform thickness free from cracks and good surface smoothness as taught by KUMAMOTO.
For claim 8, HARPER and KUMAMOTO teach the method of producing a pulp molded product of claim 7, as above. HARPER teaches the two part mold (3a and 1a) creating a cavity with suction holes (element F) [Fig 1]. This teaches the limitation “wherein the step of depositing the pulp on a paper-making mold includes preparing a cover member as a hollow member having an opening”. HARPER then teaches the mold is immersed into the stock where it is suctioned into mold cavity [column 5 line 15-17]. This teaches the limitation of “fixing the paper-making mold to the opening, immersing in the slurry the paper-making mold fixed to the opening, and decompressing a space surrounded by the cover member and the paper-making mold immersed in the slurry”.
For claim 9, HARPER and KUMAMOTO teach the method of producing a pulp molded product of claim 8, as above. HARPER teaches the two part mold (3a and 1a) creating a cavity with suction holes (element F) [Fig 1]. This teaches the limitation “comprising, as the step of immersing in the slurry the paper-making mold fixed to the opening”. HARPER then teaches the mold is immersed, lowered, into the stock where it is suctioned into mold cavity [column 5 line 15-17]. The mold is also positioned vertically above the cavity (cover member) and the stock (slurry). This teaches the limitation of “ immersing the paper-making mold in the slurry such that the paper-making mold is positioned above the cover member”.
For claim 10, HARPER teaches a machine for processing a fiber slurry into a pulp mold [column 1 line 2]. HARPER teaches the fiber is formed into a stock made of liquid pulp mixture [column 6 line 64]. This teaches the limitation of the instant claim “A method of producing a pulp molded product, comprising: preparing a slurry”. HARPER teaches the pulp is deposited onto the mould with a solid shape to form a layer [column 6 line 55]. This teaches the limitation of “depositing the pulp on a paper-making mold having a solid shape to form a pulp layer”. The pulp is then dried by pressing [column 5 line 22-26] and then dried by heating in the drying/finishing dies 4 [column 5 line 28]. HARPER teaches the mold is made of two parts, 3a and 1a [Fig 1]. This teaches the limitation of “dehydrating the pulp layer to obtain an undried intermediate molded product; and heating the undried intermediate molded product while sandwiching the intermediate molded product between a male mold and a female mold and applying pressure to the sandwiched intermediate molded product”.
HARPER does not teach the pulp fiber origins. KUMAMOTO also teaches a process to produce a pulp molded article [abstract]. Pulp is formed into a slurry with water [0026]. KUMAMOTO teaches the pulp used is made of fiber from either bamboo, softwood or hardwood [0026]. This teaches the limitation of “wherein the pulp is a softwood pulp, a hardwood pulp or a bamboo pulp”. KUMAMOTO also teaches the fiber has an average fiber length between 0.8 and 2 mm [0057]. This average fiber length range is within the instant claim range of “A method of producing a pulp molded product, comprising: preparing a slurry that contains (a) pulp having an average fiber length of 0.5 mm or more and 2.3 mm or less and (b) water”. This fiber provides the advantage of a fine structure with uniform thickness free from cracks and good surface smoothness [0059]. It would be obvious to one skilled in the arts at the time of invention to modify the process of HARPER with the fiber used in the similar process of KUMAMOTO to produce a molded fiber product. One would be motivated to combine the art based on the added benefit of a fine structure with uniform thickness free from cracks and good surface smoothness as taught by KUMAMOTO.
HARPER does not teach the final surface roughness of the product. KUMAMOTO further teaches an embodiment where the final roughness of the product is 2-3 µm [TABLE 2]. This values is within the instant claim range of “wherein the final pulp molded product has a surface having a region with an arithmetic average roughness Ra of 50 µm or less”.
HARPER does not teach the value of the applied pressure. KUMAMOTO teaches a pressing within the male and female mold cavity using an expandable member such that the pressure of the fluid applied to the inside of the expandable member is the pressing pressure exerted by the expandable member [0030]. KUMAMOTO teaches an embodiment where the fluid is fed at a pressure under 1.5 MPa [0129]. This range closely encompasses the range of the instant claim of “applying pressure of 0.3 MPa to 1 MPa to the sandwiched intermediate molded product to produce a final pulp molded product”. See MPEP 2144.04 (I).
"[A] prior art reference that discloses a range encompassing a somewhat narrower claimed range is sufficient to establish a prima facie case of obviousness." In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379, 1382-83 (Fed. Cir. 2003). See also In re Harris, 409 F.3d 1339, 74 USPQ2d 1951 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (claimed alloy held obvious over prior art alloy that taught ranges of weight percentages overlapping, and in most instances completely encompassing, claimed ranges; furthermore, narrower ranges taught by reference overlapped all but one range in claimed invention). However, if the reference’s disclosed range is so broad as to encompass a very large number of possible distinct compositions, this might present a situation analogous to the obviousness of a species when the prior art broadly discloses a genus. Id.
For claim 11, HARPER and KUMAMOTO teach the method of producing a pulp molded product of claim 10, as above. KUMAMOTO teaches the use of an air feed pipe (cover member)and immersing the mold into the slurry to forma paper layer [0015]. This teaches the limitation of “wherein the step of depositing the pulp on a paper-making mold includes preparing a cover member as a hollow member having an opening, fixing the paper-making mold to the opening, immersing in the slurry the paper-making mold fixed to the opening, and decompressing a space surrounded by the cover member and the paper-making mold immersed in the slurry”.
For claim 12, HARPER and KUMAMOTO teach the method of producing a pulp molded product of claim 10, as above. KUMAMOTO teaches the mold is immersed from above the slurry [Fig 7]. This teaches the limitation of “comprising, as the step of immersing in the slurry the paper-making mold fixed to the opening, immersing the paper-making mold in the slurry such that the paper-making mold is positioned above the cover member”.
For claim 13, HARPER and KUMAMOTO teach the method of producing a pulp molded product of claim 10, as above. KUMAMOTO further teaches an embodiment where the final roughness of the product is 2-3 µm [TABLE 2]. This values is within the instant claim range of “final pulp molded product has a surface having a region with an arithmetic average roughness Ra of 40 µm or less”. KUMAMOTO also teaches the fiber has an average fiber length between 0.8 and 2 mm [0057]. This average fiber length range overlaps the instant claim range of “wherein the pulp has the average fiber length of 0.7 mm or more and 1.7 mm or less”. See 2144.05(I).
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) (The prior art taught carbon monoxide concentrations of "about 1-5%" while the claim was limited to "more than 5%." The court held that "about 1-5%" allowed for concentrations slightly above 5% thus the ranges overlapped.)
For claim 14, HARPER and KUMAMOTO teach the method of producing a pulp molded product of claim 13, as above. KUMAMOTO teaches the pulp used is made of fiber from either bamboo, softwood or hardwood [0026]. This teaches the limitation of “wherein the pulp is a softwood pulp, a hardwood pulp or a bamboo pulp”.
For claim 15, HARPER and KUMAMOTO teach the method of producing a pulp molded product of claim 10, as above. KUMAMOTO teaches the pulp used is made of fiber from either bamboo, softwood or hardwood [0026]. This teaches the limitation of “wherein the pulp is a softwood pulp, a hardwood pulp or a bamboo pulp”.
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
/Abbas Rashid/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1748
Prosecution Insights