Detailed Action
The communications received 11/07/2025 have been filed and considered by the Examiner. Claims 1-2 and 4-6 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 .
Claim Objections
The amendments supplied 11/07/2025 have overcome the previously applied objections.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The amendments and arguments supplied 11/07/2025 have overcome the previously applied rejections under 35 USC § 112.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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(s) 1-2 and 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zongzhen (CN108060617A refer to the supplied English translation) hereinafter ZON in view of Ming et al (CN111791296A refer to the supplied English translation) hereinafter MIN.
As for claim 1, ZON teaches an automatic forming machine for pulp molding product [5] comprising:
A pulp box (tank) [Fig. 11 #22; 66], fixedly installed inside a central space, wherein a pulp material is contained inside the pulp box and a top surface of the pulp box is an open shape [65-68];
A pulp suction mold [Fig. 1 #40], supported by a supporting piece (external power mechanism) [64] passing through the pulp box to be in an upward state, wherein the supporting piece can perform a lifting action to drive the pulp suction mold to lift synchronously and in a zeroing state (zeroing state understood to mean the starting state as defined in the instant specification at paragraph 0034) [64], the pulp suction mold is driven by the supporting piece to immerse in the pulp box [64] and the pulp suction mold is connected with a first pumping device and is capable of receiving a suction action or a blow action of the first pumping device [64].
A hot press upper mold [Fig. 1 #52], installed inside a side space (side rack space) [Fig. 1-11 #14] and hung on a guide rail (the upper mold moves along the slide rail) [Fig. 1-11; 64], wherein the side space is adjacent to the central space and located at one side of the central space [Fig. 9-11 #14], a mold face of the hot press upper mold faces downwardly and the mold face of the hot press upper mold and a mold face of the pulp suction mold are correspondingly symmetrical in shapes (mold faces are substantially symmetrical) [Fig. 1-11 #40 and 52],
the hot press upper mold is connected with a second pumping device (fifth pumping device) and capable of receiving the suction action or blow action of the second pumping device [71], the hot press upper mold is driven by an external power mechanism but not to perform a horizontally transverse movement along the guide rail [71],
A hot press lower mold [Fig. 12 #51], installed inside a side space [Fig. 12 #14] and located under the hot press upper mold [Fig. 12 #52], a mold face of the hot press lower mold faces upwardly, the mold face of the hot press lower mold and the mold face of the hot press upper mold are correspondingly symmetrical (understood to mean mirrored) in shapes [Fig. 12 #51-52], the hot press lower mold is connected with a third pumping device (fifth pumping device) and capable of receiving the suction action or blow action of the third pumping device [71]; and wherein, further comprising,
In ZON, the hot press lower mold not the upper mold is driven by an external power mechanism to perform a horizontally transverse movement along the guide rail [70] while it is the hot press lower mold which performs the up and down translation not the hot press lower mold [71]. The upper molding element which can also be horizontally translated is the pulp suction mold [64]. However the Examiner notes that this is only done as a means of transfer which could be accomplished by having the hot press upper mold operate on the same rail as the transfer mold and having the lower mold be stationary. This would in essence amount to a simple substitution of motions of the mold between the hot press lower mold and the hot press upper mold which via ZON’s disclosure of the pulp suction mold would suggest is feasible in an upper molding element, and in particular the main requirement to form the paper product is that these two molds are brought together [Fig. 13 #51-52; 85]
In accordance with the MPEP, an exemplary rationale for obviousness is the simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results [MPEP(I)(B)].
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have had the hot press upper mold and the hot press lower mold of ZON switch movement mechanisms as this would have amounted to a simple substitution of mold movement mechanisms with the expected result of forming the paper product.
ZON fails to teach the material receiving mechanism and the rail block.
MIN teaches an automatic paper molding machine [5]. This machine includes:
A material receiving mechanism (second conveying mechanism) [Fig. 5 #30; 62], wherein the material receiving mechanism has a vertical base [Fig. 5 #38 to 50] resting on a fixed position and a straight rail [Fig. 7 #33] is configured on a side of the vertical base (connected through the bracket) [Fig. 5 #38]; a horizontal rail [Fig. 5 and 7 #10] is transversely and crossly configured on the straight rail, the horizontal rail extends a large section toward the side space [Fig. 5 #10], the horizontal rail can be pushed by an external power mechanism [Fig. 5 and 7 #34; 64] to perform an up and down movement along the straight rail and be controlled to stop moving anytime;
a rail block (sliding block of first bracket) [Fig. 5 and 7 #31; 65] is clamped on the horizontal rail and pushed by an external power mechanism (second driving device) [Fig. 5 and 7 #32] to move transversely along the horizontal rail and can be controlled to stop moving anytime; and a sliding bar is fixed under the rail block and the sliding bar can move transversely along the horizontal rail accompanying with the rail block and stop anytime accompanying with the rail block (via the rack and pinion system) [65], the sliding bar extends a large section toward the side space (it is understood that the rack and pinion system extends towards the side space) and a adsorption member (second suction nozzle) [Fig. 8 #37; 68] is configured below the sliding bar (below the rail generally) to generate an adsorption effect due to the connection with a vacuum suction mechanism.
The benefit of this material receiving mechanism combined with its rail block allow for automatic removal of the produced paper product which increases processing efficiency, reduces labor intensity, and helps reduce potential safety hazards [26].
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have added the material receiving mechanism with its rail block of MIN to the side space of ZON in order to provide ZON with automatic removal of the produced paper product which increases processing efficiency, reduces labor intensity, and helps reduce potential safety hazards. As both MIN and ZON pertain to automatic pulp molding machines, they are analogous art and one of ordinary skill in the art expects success in their combination.
As it pertains to the limitations about there being first and second hot press molds on opposite sides of a central space, this is understood to be a duplication of the upper mold press on the opposite side.
In accordance with the MPEP a legal rationale that supports a conclusion of obviousness is the duplication of parts [MPEP 2144.04(IV)(B)].
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have added a second hot press upper mold and second hot press lower mold as this would have amounted to a duplication of parts. In addition one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the advantage of adding an additional pair of hot press upper and lower molds which share a same slurry tank as a means of increasing the overall output of the automatic forming machine for pulp products (as for example one mold can perform suctioning in the slurry while the other is heating and compressing the molds).
As for claim 2, ZON/MIN teach claim 1 and it is understood that the first and second hot press upper molds are understood to be two duplicates of the hot press upper mold of claim 1 that together form a single grouping into what is denoted at “the hot press upper mold” which are also mounted on the same rail but on alternate sides of the central space. A similar understanding exists for the first and second hot press lower molds. Therefore the second hot press upper and lower molds are duplicates of the upper and lower molds of claim 1 which themselves are the first hot press upper and lower molds.
In accordance with the MPEP a legal rationale that supports a conclusion of obviousness is the duplication of parts [MPEP 2144.04(IV)(B)].
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have added a second hot press upper mold and second hot press lower mold as this would have amounted to a duplication of parts. In addition one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the advantage of adding an additional pair of hot press upper and lower molds which share a same slurry tank as a means of increasing the overall output of the automatic forming machine for pulp products (as for example one mold can perform suctioning in the slurry while the other is heating and compressing the molds).
As for claim 4, ZON/MIN teach claim 2 and similar to the understanding of the first and second hot press upper and lower molds of claim 2, the material receiving mechanism is understood to be the first material receiving mechanism and the second material receiving mechanism is understood to be a duplicate on the first but arranged adjacent the second hot press upper and lower molds.
In accordance with the MPEP a legal rationale that supports a conclusion of obviousness is the duplication of parts [MPEP 2144.04(IV)(B)].
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have added a second material receiving mechanism as this would have amounted to a duplication of parts. In addition one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the advantage of adding an additional material receiving mechanism onto the second pair of hot press upper and lower molds in order to improve the removal efficiency.
Claim(s) 5-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ZON/MIN as applied to claim 1 and further in view of Stefan (WO2005017251A1) hereinafter STE.
As for claim 5, ZON/MIN teach claim 1 and that there is a source of air blowing or sucking that the upper mold utilizes and while the hot press mold utilizes vacuum or blowing to dry suggesting that there is some hole engagement in the pulp suction part (via pumping devices) [86], it does not explicitly disclose/teach holes and the exact configuration.
STE teaches a paper molding device (apparatus for the production of fiberboard from wood and plant fibers) [39; 43; 46] in which air holes (the channels that form holes that connect to the air recessed nozzles) [Fig. 2 #7; 46] are present in the upper mold table [Fig. 2 #4] along the entirety of the upper mold table [Fig. 2 #7; 45], the holes extend into a chamber [Fig. 2 #7 feeds into 5-6; 50-54]. The arrangement of STE allows for the utilization of multiple kinds of gas (steam and hot air) which can be used to improve the heating of the fiber material [46; 50]
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have added the air extraction holes and chamber of STE to the upper hot press molds of ZON/MIN in order to allow for the utilization of multiple kinds of gas which can be used to improve the heating of the fiber material. As both ZON/MIN and STE pertain to molding of paper based products, they are analogous art and one of ordinary skill in the art expects success in their combination.
As it pertains to the question of blowing versus air extraction/sucking, it is understood that the functional difference between the two as it pertains to channels is connection to the relevant source. As the pumping device of ZON both blows and sucks [84-86] the air holes of ZON/MIN/STE are understood to be air extraction holes.
As it pertains to the question of a mold table, it is understood that the air extraction holes would be incorporated into the mold surface of ZON’s mold table and the chamber and other air passage elements would be incorporated into the mold table due to their more analogous structure to STE’s as seen in the modified figure 16 of ZON below.
PNG
media_image1.png
254
634
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In accordance with the MPEP, a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results is an exemplary rationale of obviousness.
Therefore replacing the blowing pumping device with the sucking pumping device is a simple substitution of pumping device with the expected result of drying the molded product.
As it pertains to the air extraction gathering tube and air extraction middle tube, these are understood to be connections from the air chamber (which being in connection with the air extraction middle tube would mean that the chamber ‘is outward’ through said tube) to the pumping device which would exist in the combination. As it pertains to the relative positions of the inner end of the air extraction middle tube and the air chamber, these are understood to be a rearrangement of parts.
In accordance with the MPEP, a rearrangement of parts is a legal precedent that supports a conclusion of obviousness [MPEP 2144.04(VI)(C)].
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have arranged the lower position of the inner end of the air extraction middle tube to be lower than the air chamber as this would have amounted to a rearrangement of parts.
As for claim 6, ZON/MIN teach claim 1 and that there is a source of air blowing or sucking that the upper mold utilizes and while the hot press mold utilizes vacuum to dry suggesting that there is some hole engagement in the pulp suction part (via pumping devices) [86], it does not explicitly disclose/teach holes in the mold tables and the exact configuration.
STE teaches a paper molding device (apparatus for the production of fiberboard from wood and plant fibers) [39; 43; 46] in which air blowing holes (the channels that form holes that connect to the air recessed nozzles) [Fig. 2 #7; 46] are present in the mold table and go towards the source (which would be upwards for the upper mold and downwards for a lower mold) [Fig. 2 #4] along the entirety of the mold table [Fig. 2 #7; 45], the holes extend into inlets [Fig. 2 #7 feeds into 5-6; 50-54]. The arrangement of STE allows for the utilization of multiple kinds of gas (steam and hot air) which can be used to improve the heating of the fiber material [46; 50].
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have added the air blowing holes and air inlets of STE to the upper and lower hot press molds of ZON/MIN in order to allow for the utilization of multiple kinds of gas which can be used to improve the heating of the fiber material. As both ZON/MIN and STE pertain to molding of paper based products, they are analogous art and one of ordinary skill in the art expects success in their combination.
As it pertains to the question of a mold table, it is understood that the air blowing holes would be incorporated into the mold surface of ZON’s mold table and the other air passage elements would be incorporated into the mold table due to their more analogous structure to STE’s as seen in the modified figure 16 of ZON below.
PNG
media_image1.png
254
634
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/07/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the duplication of parts does not meet the limitations as presented involving the second upper press mold.
Respectfully the Examiner disagrees as the duplication of the upper press mold would result in its placement on the opposite side because that is the sole available location. Adding an upper press mold would result in a completely expected additional mold which in the context of the process would result in added production capacity. Therefore it is a rationale that meets the limitations as presented in claim 1 and the prior art remains.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 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 /Abbas Rashid/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1748