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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claims 12, 14-18, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Larsson et al. (US 2019/0070819), hereinafter Larsson, in view of Kobayashi et al. (US 2008/0211126), hereinafter Kobayashi.
Regarding claims 12 and 22, Larsson discloses a method for forming non-flat cellulose products from an air-formed cellulose blank structure in a product forming unit that comprises a blank dry-forming module with a movable forming wire (14) (par. 0065 – “forming wire 14”), a forming mold (3) (par. 0065), and an electronic control system operatively connected to the forming wire.
Larsson further discloses a movable first mold part (as shown by the downward arrow in Fig. 1) and a second mold part (below, Fig. 1; par. 0058) with respect to the forming mold (3).
Larsson further discloses: (a) air-forming a cellulose blank structure onto the forming wire (par. 0055 – describes that the cellulose fibers are “blown” using a fan arranged above the forming wire; Fig. 1);
(b) feeding the air-formed cellulose blank structure into a pressing area defined by first and second mold parts (unlabeled, Fig. 1, right, shows a male and female mold part; par. 0058),
(d) controlling operation of the forming wire by intermittently feeding the forming wire during subsequent pressing operations (par. 0061).
Larsson further discloses controlling operating of the forming wire by the electronic control system by intermittently feeding the forming wire (Larsson, par. 0060-0061 – “[t]he cellulose blank may, as an example, be intermittently fed to the forming mold . . . “) which would mean that the forming wire is operated periodically with a higher speed at some times, or a lower or zero speed at other times when required by the process when not being “intermittently fed” even if the feeding speed is constant, the pressing speed would be zero, thus still meeting the claim. A zero speed would be 0% of the first speed, thus meeting this limitation.
Larsson does not explicitly disclose that the forming mold includes a toggle press as required in the claim or the method step (c) of controlling of the pressing actuator movement by driving the pressing member in the pressing direction specifically by the toggle mechanism as is required in the claim as to press the first mold part against the second mold part.
However, Kobayashi discloses a toggle press module (10) suitable for pressing a sheet material as it is used for clamping a mold, comprising: a toggle press (10) including a pressing member (13) movably arranged in a pressing direction, a toggle mechanism (20) drivingly connected to the pressing member, a pressing actuator arrangement (24-27) drivingly connected to the toggle mechanism (20) for controlling motion of the toggle mechanism between a retracted operating position and an extended operating position (Kobayashi, par. 0023-0028; Fig. 1); a forming mold (11) including a first mold part (11b) attached to the pressing member (13) and a second mold part (11a).
Kobayashi further discloses an adjustment mechanism (35) for enabling adjustment of a distance of a pressing direction between the first and second mold parts (11a, 11b) while having the toggle mechanism (20) in a non-moving operating state and an adjustment actuator arrangement (31) configured for driving the adjustment mechanism (35), a pressing force indicating arrangement (18), and an electronic control system (19) operatively connected to the pressing force indicating arrangement (Kobayashi, Fig. 1), the pressing indicator arrangement (26) and the adjustment actuator arrangement (31), wherein the control system is configured for controlling operation of the pressing member (13) and the actuator arrangement (31) (Kobayashi, par. 0034).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have found the arrangement of Kobayashi (having a toggle press mechanism/control thereof) suitable for pressing the cellulosic material as a substitutable alternative to that of Larsson above as it is suitable for clamping or pressing a material as it includes a precise means of control of the pressing/clamping of the two parts together. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art could have used either modes of formation, with a reasonable likelihood of success, leading one of ordinary skill in the art to have been motivated to have selected either of the arrangements, Larsson’s or Kobayashi’s for pressing the material, and may have even found it advantageous to have used Kobayashi’s arrangement, as a more precise means of applying the correct amount of clamping pressure to the material.
Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to have specified that the above forming mechanism from Larsson instead includes a toggle press as described in Kobayashi, as is required in the claims as a substitutable alternative for the forming press of Larsson above.
Regarding claims 14-15, Larsson/Kobayashi discloses the subject matter of claim 12, and further discloses that the machine is pressed in a way such that the product will have good mechanical properties (Larsson, par. 0059) and the toggle press includes a pressing force indicating arrangement as outlined above (Kobayashi, Fig. 1) and operates using feedback information (Kobayashi, par. 0054).
Regarding claim 16, Larsson/Kobayashi discloses the subject matter of claim 12, and further discloses that the step of air forming includes separating fibers in a mill (Larsson, par. 0025, 0054) and distributing the fibers onto a forming wire (Larsson, par. 0055, Fig. 1)
Regarding claim 17, Larsson/Kobayashi discloses the subject matter of claim 12, and further discloses that the blank is transported from the dry forming module in a first feeding direction, and a second feeding direction in an intermittent manner (Larsson, par. 0061).
Regarding claim 18, Larsson/Kobayashi discloses the subject matter of claim 12, and further discloses that the step of forming the cellulose products from the cellulose blank structure in the forming mold involves heating the blank to a forming temperature of 100-200 C (Larsson, par. 0073) or exactly 160 C (Larsson, par. 0076) and a pressure of 4 MPa (Larsson, par. 0076), both falling with in the claimed ranges, thus meeting the claim.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5/27/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant’s arguments will be addressed below.
First, it is noted that the term “intermittently” in this context seems to necessarily include a periodic operation of the wire with a first speed while it is moved into position, and a second, or zero speed, when the wire is not being moved. Larsson, par. 0060-0061 specifically teaches “intermittently” feeding the forming wire, thus meeting this claim limitation. Applicant’s argument refers to another portion of the reference and classifies the prior art as “continuous” but this intermittent feeding of the forming wire does not support this position as the effect is the same, and the linear velocity of the material would have to slow down/stop to avoid bunching up before the mold, if the mold is pressing an object. Accordingly, the rejections are maintained as outlined above.
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 ANDREW D GRAHAM whose telephone number is (469)295-9232. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30AM-4:00PM (CST).
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, Christina Johnson can be reached at (571) 272-1176. 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.
/ANDREW D GRAHAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1742
Prosecution Insights