DETAILED ACTION
The communication dated 10/8/2025 has been entered and fully considered. Claims 1-15 are cancelled. Claims 16-31 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
Claims 24-31 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected Groups 2-4, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 10/08/2025.
Applicant's election with traverse of claims 24-31 in the reply filed on 10/08/2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the claimed invention overcomes prior art. This is not found persuasive because applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 16-31 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.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claim Objections
Claim 16 is objected to because of the following informality: the recitation “the rigid cellulose product” in line 21 should be changed to “the rigid cellulose products”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 21 objected to because of the following informality: the recitation “second a disintegrating unit” is grammatically incorrect. Appropriate correction is required.
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) 16-19, 22 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ENLOE (US 4666647) in view of BANKS (US 3518726 A).
For claim 16, ENLOE teaches an apparatus for manufacturing a laid fibrous article with a three dimensional shape [abstract and FIG 3]. This teaches the limitation of “An apparatus for dry manufacturing rigid cellulose products having essentially non-flat general shape”. ENLOE also teaches the apparatus has disintegrated pulp fiber (separated from raw material through disintegration) [column 9 line 7]. This teaches the limitation of “the apparatus comprising: a disintegrating unit configured to provide a quantity of separated cellulose fibres from a cellulose raw material”. ENLOE teaches the fiber (element 10) is carried by entrained air through a duct (element 11) [Fig 1]. This teaches the limitation of “and a cellulose blank forming unit comprising: a dispenser configured to guide a cellulose-fibre-carrying air flow from the disintegrating unit”. ENLOE then teaches the fiber is carried to a forming drum assembly (element 15) [column 11 line 63] that has pyramid shaped depressions that act as shaping molds [column 12 line 25]. This teaches the limitation of “a cellulose blank forming drum having an outer surface comprising perforations, the outer surface: configured to receive cellulose fibres and to form a continuous or discontinuous cellulose blank from the quantity of separated cellulose fibres transported by the air flow via the dispenser”. ENLOE teaches a roller opposite to the formation roller is used to press the cellulose into shape [column 13 line 38. ENLOE also teaches entrained air is used to remove the formed cellulose article [column 12 line 49]. The formed cellulose article is then conveyed on a belt (element 27) [FIG 1]. This teaches the limitation of “ an air removing device arranged inside the forming drum, and a support structure for receiving the cellulose blank formed on the forming drum; a product forming unit configured to produce the rigid cellulose product from the cellulose blank by pressing”.
ENLOE does not teach a difference in density on the pressed cellulose material. BANKS teaches a similar air laid [column 1 line 46] pressed cellulose product [abstract] like ENLOE. BANKS further teaches the air laid product has different densities in different regions such that one region has higher density than another [column 7 line 26 and 32]. This teaches the limitation of “and comprising a first area having a first perforation density and a second area having a second perforation density that is less than the first perforation density for forming the cellulose blank with higher grammage at first locations originating from the first area than at second locations originating from the second area”. BANKS teaches the advantage of different densities is that the densely compressed areas accept more liquid compared to less dense areas which allows for the control of liquid distribution [column 8 lien 1-5]. It would be obvious to one skilled in the arts at the time of invention to modify the structure of ENLOE with the density configuration of BANKS to produce an improved article. One would be motivated based on the improved liquid distribution control as taught by BANKS.
For claim 17, ENLOE and BANKS teach the apparatus of claim 16, as above. BANKS teaches there are no perforations on the outside (element 106) of the depressed areas (element 106a) (equivalent to zero perforation density) [Fig 15]. This teaches the limitation of “wherein the second perforation density of the second area of the outer surface of the forming drum is equal to zero”.
For claim 18, ENLOE and BANKS teach the apparatus of claim 16, as above. ENLOE teaches the depressions (recesses) are pyramids that create a pocket with vacuumed [column 9 line 24]. This teaches the limitation of “wherein: the outer surface of the forming drum comprises a main envelope surface and one or more recesses provided in the main envelope surface”. ENLOE teaches the roll is perforated on over the suctioned depression section [column 7 line 61]. This teaches the limitation of “and the first area having a first perforation density is located in the one or more recesses”.
For claim 19, ENLOE and BANKS teach the apparatus of claim 18, as above. ENLOE does not teach two densities within the envelope surface. BANKS teaches patterns where perforations are denser (right side of roll) than others (left side of roll) while both are within the press envelope [Fig 8 and Fig 15]. This teaches the limitation of “wherein the second area having a second perforation density is located in the main envelope surface”.
For claim 22, ENLOE and BANKS teach the apparatus of claim 16, as above. ENLOE teaches the drum has depressions that act as a mold for the formation of pyramid shapes by the collected cellulose fiber [column 12 line 22-26]. The drum contains multiple shapes in series allowing for discontinuous shapes to be formed [Fig 8]. This teaches the limitation of “wherein the product forming unit comprises a moulding tool for producing the rigid cellulose products having essentially non-flat general shape from said continuous or discontinuous cellulose blank”.
For claim 23, ENLOE and BANKS teach the apparatus of claim 16, as above. ENLOE does not teach the use of compressive rolls downstream. BANKS teaches a similar air laid [column 1 line 46] pressed cellulose product [abstract] like ENLOE. BANKS teaches the articles are compressed further downstream to produce compressed zones [column 7 lines 70 and 71]. BANKS further teaches the air laid product has different densities in different regions such that one region has higher density than another [column 7 line 26 and 32]. This teaches the limitation of “wherein the cellulose blank forming unit comprises compression rolls downstream of the forming drum, for compressing the continuous or discontinuous cellulose blank”. BANKS teaches the advantage of different densities is that the densely compressed areas accept more liquid compared to less dense areas which allows for the control of liquid distribution [column 8 lien 1-5]. It would be obvious to one skilled in the arts at the time of invention to modify the structure of ENLOE with the density configuration of BANKS to produce an improved article. One would be motivated based on the improved liquid distribution control as taught by BANKS.
Claim(s) 20 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ENLOE (US 4666647) and BANKS (US 3518726 A) in view of EDVARDSSON (US 20100013118 A1).
For claim 20, ENLOE and BANKS teach the apparatus of claim 16, as above. ENLOE teaches the use of multiple formation blank units on a single roll [Fig 8] that include a formation drum with perforations [column 9 line 10] designed to receive cellulose fiber carried on air [column 12 line 9] with suction devices in the drum [column 9 line 11]. ENLOE does not teach the simultaneous use of a second assembly. EDVARDSSON teaches a similar configuration with a formation drum with perforations [0011] designed to receive cellulose fiber carried on air [0001] with suction devices in the drum [0012] similar to ENLOE. EDVARDSSON also teaches the use of a first and second formation roll configurations [0013]. This teaches the limitation of “wherein the cellulose blank forming unit further comprises: a second forming drum having a second outer surface comprising perforations, wherein the second outer surface is configured for receiving cellulose fibres and for forming the cellulose blank from a second quantity of separated cellulose fibres transported by the air flow or a second cellulose fibre carrying air flow; and a second air removing device arranged inside the second forming drum”. EDVARDSSON teaches the second drum is a direct advantage of the configuration. It would be obvious to one skilled in the arts at the time of invention to modify the structure of ENLOE with the multi-drum configuration of EDVARDSSON to produce more articles. One would be motivated based on the increased productivity advantage as taught by EDVARDSSON.
For claim 21, ENLOE, BANKS, and EDVARDSSON teach the apparatus of claim 20, as above. EDVARDSSON teaches multiple formation drums with both drums have the same configuration of a hood that supplies the fiber entrained in air provided by a fan and a hammer mill to disintegrate the pulp into fiber [0018]. This teaches the limitation of “wherein the cellulose blank forming unit further comprises: a second fan for generating the second cellulose fibre carrying air flow, wherein the disintegrating unit or second a disintegrating unit is connected to the second fan, wherein the outer surface of the second forming drum is configured for receiving cellulose fibres and for forming a cellulose blank from the second quantity of separated cellulose fibres transported by the second air flow generated by the second fan”.
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 web-based collaboration tool. Applicant can 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