DETAILED ACTION
The communication dated 2/18/2026 has been entered and fully considered. Claim 7 is cancelled. Claims 1-6 are pending. Claim 1 is amended.
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 does not teach the amended instant claim 1 and all dependent claims thereof are allowable. Applicant argues that prior art PRANOTO is silent to starch as binding and the amended organic oxide
Applicant's arguments filed 2/18/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
BOWDEN teaches the use of pre- gelled starch as binding material [column 8 lines 9 and column 8 line 13]. BOWDEN also teaches the use of starch as an organic coating [column 25 line 32]. BOWDEN teaches aluminum oxide used as inorganic coating [column 25 line 41]. BOWDEN also teaches the inorganic and organic coating can be used together [column 25 line 42] and applied by air knife to the cellulose fiber formed product [column 25 line 60]. This teaches the limitation of “depositing in air a mixture containing fibers, a plurality of starch particles that is a binding material to bind the fibers, and inorganic oxide particles, a material of the inorganic oxide particles being silica, titanium oxide, aluminum oxide, zinc oxide, cerium oxide, magnesium oxide, zirconium oxide, strontium titanate, barium titanate, or calcium carbonate, the starch particles and the inorganic oxide particles being integrally formed”.
BOWDEN does not teach the starch particle coated and integrally formed by coating with inorganic oxides. BOWDEN teaches the use of a modified tapioca starch [column 15 line 50]. PRANOTO et al (Properties of Ozone-Oxidized Tapioca Starch and Its Use in Coating of Fried Peanuts) teaches a similar process of using swelled tapioca starch like BOWDEN [abstract]. PRANOTO further teaches that the starch is modified with an inorganic oxide, hydrogen peroxide. PRANOTO teaches the tapioca starch, S1, is diffused in air with the hydrogen peroxide to produce the modified starch. The modification results in a greater swelling power, water and oil retention for the starch [abstract]. PRANOTO teaches the hydrogen peroxide is used at a composition of 0.1% relative the starch composition [3.2 Preparation of Ozone-Oxidized Tapioca]. This value is within the range of the instant limitation of “in air the starch particles and the inorganic oxide particles being integrally formed, surfaces of the starch particles being coated with the inorganic oxide particles a content of the inorganic oxide particles being 0.1 to 5 parts by mass with respect to 100 parts by mass of the starch particles in the mixture”. It would be obvious to one skilled in the arts at the time of invention to substitute the oxidized tapioca starch composition used by BOWDEN with the starch composition of PRANOTO to produce a coating. One skilled in the arts would be motivated to combine the arts based on the improved retention and swell ability of the modified starch taught by PRANOTO.
The Examiner notes that claim 1 remains rejected and all dependent claims remain rejected as well.
Applicant claims there is no apparent reason for modifying art.
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, one skilled in the arts would be motivated to combine the arts based on the improved retention and swell ability of the starch taught by PRANOTO.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 5, and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over BOWDEN (US 6878199 B2) in view of AMES (US 20050025867 A1), PRANOTO et al (Properties of Ozone-Oxidized Tapioca Starch and Its Use in Coating of Fried Peanuts) and BALET (Rapid Visco Analyser (RVA) as a Tool for Measuring Starch-Related Physiochemical Properties in Cereals: a Review).
For claim 1, BOWDEN teaches a process to make a molded body [column 8 line 25]. The first step includes mixing dry cellulose and dry starch (in air) [column 10 line 7]. This teaches the limitation of “A method for manufacturing a molded body, comprising: a deposition step of depositing a mixture containing fibers and a starch in air”. The mixture is then combined with pre-gelled starch that includes water [column 10 line 28]. This teaches the limitation of “applying water to the mixture”. The material is then molded (pressed) and heated [column 10 line 31]. This teaches the limitation of “and forming a molded body by heating and pressurizing the mixture to which the water is applied”.
BOWDEN teaches the use of pre- gelled starch as binding material [column 8 lines 9 and column 8 line 13]. BOWDEN also teaches the use of starch as an organic coating [column 25 line 32]. BOWDEN teaches aluminum oxide used as inorganic coating [column 25 line 41]. BOWDEN also teaches the inorganic and organic coating can be used together [column 25 line 42] and applied by air knife to the cellulose fiber formed product [column 25 line 60]. This teaches the limitation of “depositing in air a mixture containing fibers, a plurality of starch particles that is a binding material to bind the fibers, and inorganic oxide particles, a material of the inorganic oxide particles being silica, titanium oxide, aluminum oxide, zinc oxide, cerium oxide, magnesium oxide, zirconium oxide, strontium titanate, barium titanate, or calcium carbonate, the starch particles and the inorganic oxide particles being integrally formed”.
BOWDEN does not teach the starch particle coated and integrally formed by coating with inorganic oxides. BOWDEN teaches the use of a modified tapioca starch [column 15 line 50]. PRANOTO et al (Properties of Ozone-Oxidized Tapioca Starch and Its Use in Coating of Fried Peanuts) teaches a similar process of using swelled tapioca starch like BOWDEN [abstract]. PRANOTO further teaches that the starch is modified with an inorganic material, hydrogen peroxide (inorganic oxide). PRANOTO teaches the tapioca starch, S1, is diffused in air with the hydrogen peroxide to produce the modified starch. The modification results in a greater swelling power, water and oil retention for the starch [abstract]. PRANOTO teaches the hydrogen peroxide is used at a composition of 0.1% relative the starch composition [3.2 Preparation of Ozone-Oxidized Tapioca]. This value is within the range of the instant limitation of “in air the starch particles and the inorganic oxide particles being integrally formed, surfaces of the starch particles being coated with the inorganic oxide particles a content of the inorganic oxide particles being 0.1 to 5 parts by mass with respect to 100 parts by mass of the starch particles in the mixture”. It would be obvious to one skilled in the arts at the time of invention to substitute the oxidized tapioca starch composition used by BOWDEN with the starch composition of PRANOTO to produce a coating. One skilled in the arts would be motivated to combine the arts based on the improved retention and swell ability of the modified starch taught by PRANOTO.
BOWDEN does not teach the setback viscosity of the starch or the measurement tools used. BOWDEN does teach the starch used can be derived from barley [column 18 line 66]. AMES teaches the physical properties of barley [ABSTRACT]. BALET teaches the RVA provides readouts in standard units of mPa·s [p.2348]. This includes the setback viscosity of 86 mPa·s as measured by a rapid visco analyzer (RVA) at 26% starch by mass [AMES, TABLE 1]. This value lies within the range of the instant claim. This meets the limitation “wherein the starch has a setback viscosity (η50-η93) of 40 to 200 mPa·s the setback viscosity (η50-η93) being obtained by measurement performed in accordance with the following measurement methods (1) to (4) using a rapid visco analyzer (RVA), and the measurement is performed such that (1) after a water suspension containing the starch at 25 percent by mass is charged in the RVA as a measurement sample,”. It would be obvious to one skilled in the arts at the time of invention to combine the barley starch used by AMES in the materials from BOWDEN. One skilled in the arts would be motivated to combine the arts based on the direct common use of barley starch in both art.
BOWDEN does not teach the specific steps of the method of the testing. BALET teaches how the RVA is properly used to test barley starch physical properties [Abstract]. BALET teaches the test profile for BARLEY. The test profile starts with a cook temperature of 50°C and held for 1 minute [Table 6]. This meets the limitation of the instant claim where “the temperature thereof is increased to 50°C and then maintained for one minute”. BALET also teaches the next cook temperature is raised to 95°C over the course of 3.7 minutes [Table 6 “Varieties of breeding”]. The temperature is then held for 2.5 minutes and cooled to 50°C over the course of 3.8 minutes [Table 6 “Varieties of breeding”]. The cooled temperature is maintained for another 2 minutes [Table 6 “Varieties of breeding”]. The temperature and times are close to the instant claim “(2) the temperature of the measurement sample is increased from 50°C to 93°C over 4 minutes and then maintained at 93°C for 7 minutes; (3) the temperature of the measurement sample is decreased from 93°C to 50°C over 4 minutes and then maintained at 50°C for 3 minutes”. The conditions of the limitation are met. See MPEP 2144.05(I).
Similarly, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (Court held as proper a rejection of a claim directed to an alloy of "having 0.8% nickel, 0.3% molybdenum, up to 0.1% iron, balance titanium" as obvious over a reference disclosing alloys of 0.75% nickel, 0.25% molybdenum, balance titanium and 0.94% nickel, 0.31% molybdenum, balance titanium. "The proportions are so close that prima facie one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties.").
BALET also teaches the rotational speed of the RVA is 960 rpm for 10 seconds and 160 rpm for remainder of the test period [Table 6 “Varieties of breeding”]. This teaches the limitation of “and (4) in the above (2) and (3), a rotational speed of a measurement paddle of the RVA is set to 960 rpm for 10 seconds after the start of the viscosity measurement and is then set to 160 rpm 10 seconds thereafter”.
For claim 2, BOWDEN, PRANOTO, AMES, and BALET teach the method for manufacturing a molded body according to claim 1, as above. BOWDEN teaches the molding temperature is preferably 200°C [column 24 line 45]. This is within range of and teaches the limitation of “wherein a heating temperature of the mixture forming of the molded body is 60°C to 200°C”.
For claim 5, BOWDEN, PRANOTO, AMES, and BALET teach the method for manufacturing a molded body according to claim 1, as above. BOWDEN teaches the addition of water at 0.5 to 20% [column 9 line 55]. This value is within range of the instant claim of “wherein an amount of the water applied during the moisturizing step with respect to a total mass of the mixture is 12 to 40 percent by mass”.
For claim 6, BOWDEN, PRANOTO, AMES, and BALET teach the method for manufacturing a molded body according to claim 1, as above. BOWDEN teaches the use of starch in a powder form [column 18 line 10] but does not teach the particle size. BALET teaches starch particles can range between 1 to 100 µm [p2345]. This teaches the limitation of “wherein an average particle diameter of the starch particles is 1.0 to 30.0 μm”.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over BOWDEN (US 6878199 B2), AMES (US 20050025867 A1), PRANOTO et al (Properties of Ozone-Oxidized Tapioca Starch and Its Use in Coating of Fried Peanuts), and BALET (Rapid Visco Analyser (RVA) as a Tool for Measuring Starch-Related Physiochemical Properties in Cereals: a Review) in view of YOSHIOKA (US 20210363700 A1).
For claim 3, BOWDEN, PRANOTO, AMES, and BALET teach the method for manufacturing a molded body according to claim 1, as above. BOWDEN does not teach the use of rolls as molds for the shaped material. YOSHIOKA teaches the formation of an air-laid pressed sheet with cellulose and starch [0097]. The pressed sheet is pressed between heated rollers [0040]. This teaches the limitation of the instant claim “wherein the forming of the molded body is performed by a pair of heating rollers”.
It would be obvious to one skilled in the arts at the time of invention to substitute the rollers of YOSHIOKA for the press molds of BOWDEN. One would be motivated by the common use of air-laid pressing heating processes.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over BOWDEN (US 6878199 B2), AMES (US 20050025867 A1) and BALET (Rapid Visco Analyser (RVA) as a Tool for Measuring Starch-Related Physiochemical Properties in Cereals: a Review) in view of KIM (US 6537474 B1).
For claim 4, BOWDEN, PRANOTO, AMES, and BALET teach the method for manufacturing a molded body according to claim 1, as above. BOWDEN does not teach a mold pressure within the claimed range. KIM teaches a similar process of making a starch and wood based article that is pressed then heated [ABSTRACT]. KIM teaches the mold is pressed at 5kg/cm2 (equivalent to 0.5 MPa). This is within the range of the instant claim of “wherein a pressurizing force during the forming of the molded body is 0.2 to 10.0 MPa”.
It would be obvious to one skilled in the arts at the time of invention to try the pressures of KIM for the press mold temperatures of BOWDEN. One would be motivated by the common methods and materials.
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 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 on (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