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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 01/22/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Applicant amendment filed 11/24/2025 has been entered and is currently under consideration. Claims 1-11 and 13-16 remain pending in the application.
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.
Claim(s) 11 and 13-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DePetris et al. (US5302445 of record) hereinafter DePetris in view of Johnson (US3614811 of record) and Moser (US4087224).
Regarding claim 11, DePetris teaches:
A pressure moulding apparatus for manufacturing a cellulose product having a non-flat product shape starting from a cellulose blank (Fig 3: mat 48; col 2, ln 21-27) comprising:
a forming mould having a forming surface defining said product shape (Fig 3: dies 64),
a heating arrangement arranged to heat the cellulose blank to a forming temperature (Fig 3: heating means 61),
wherein the forming mould comprising a negative forming mould part and a positive forming mould part arranged to provide a forming pressure on the cellulose blank across said forming surface (Fig 3: dies 64; col 6, ln 40-51),
and applying the pressure on the cellulose blank when forming the cellulose product (col 6, ln 59-62).
DePetris does not teach wherein the cellulose product forming apparatus further comprises a dry forming unit for forming the cellulose blank comprising cellulose fibres, where the cellulose fibres are carried and formed to the cellulose blank by air as carrying medium.
However, DePetris teaches a separate apparatus for forming a cellulose blank (Fig 1-2: mat 48) comprising a dry forming unit for forming the cellulose blank comprising cellulose fibres (Fig 1-2: treated fibers 36), where the cellulose fibres are carried and formed to the cellulose blank by air as carrying medium (Fig 1-2; col 5, ln 24-46).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the blank forming apparatus as taught by DePetris with the moulding apparatus of DePetris since each element merely performs the same function as it does separately and the results would have been predictable since DePetris teaches the blank forming apparatus forms a blank that is then molded by the moulding apparatus to produce a molded product formed from a blank.
DePetris does not explicitly recite a forming temperature in the range of 100°C to 200°C and a forming pressure being in the range of 1 MPa to 100 MPa.
However, DePetris teaches a range of values for the forming temperature and forming pressure that overlaps the claimed ranges (col 6, ln 59-62).
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). See MPEP 2144.05.
Since overlapping ranges are evidence of prima facie obviousness, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have chosen the portion of the forming temperature and forming pressure as taught by DePetris that overlaps with the claimed ranges.
DePetris does not teach the cellulose blank consisting of cellulose fibres.
However, [i]nclusion of the material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims. See MPEP 2115.
DePetris does not teach wherein said forming mould comprises a massive flexible membrane which is applying the pressure on the cellulose blank when forming the cellulose product, where the massive flexible membrane is made of a homogenous body of a flexible material.
In the same field of endeavor regarding molding, Johnson teaches a forming mould with diaphragm means comprising a massive flexible membrane which is applying the pressure on a blank when forming a product, where the massive flexible membrane is made of a homogenous body of a flexible material for the motivation of preventing marring of the molded product during separation (Fig 1-2: diaphragm 18, 19; col 2, ln 1-2; col 3, ln 4-10; diaphragm 18 is interpreted to be the massive flexible membrane).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the forming mould as taught by DePetris with the diaphragm means as taught by Johnson in order to prevent marring of the molded product during separation.
DePetris in view of Johnson does not teach wherein the membrane has a varied thickness, wherein the thinner and thicker areas of the massive flexible membrane are configured to compensate for areas in the forming mould parts which need smaller or bigger deformation of the membrane, respectively, in order to equalize or even out the pressure subjected to the cellulose blank.
In the same field of endeavor regarding molding, Moser teaches a flexible membrane having a varied thickness wherein the thinner and thicker areas of the flexible membrane are configured to compensate for areas in the forming mould parts which need smaller or bigger deformation of the membrane, respectively, in order to equalize or even out the pressure (col 3, ln 43-50; col 5, ln 24-28).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the flexible membrane as taught by DePetris in view of Johnson to have varied thickness as taught by Moser in order to equalize or even out the pressure.
Regarding claim 13, DePetris in view of Johnson and Moser teaches the apparatus of claim 11.
Johnson further teaches wherein the massive flexible membrane is arranged to deform in order to provide an isostatic pressure (col 1, ln 13-23).
Regarding claim 14, DePetris in view of Johnson and Moser teaches the apparatus of claim 11.
Johnson further teaches wherein the massive flexible membrane is made of an elastomeric material, such as rubber, silicone, polyurethane or another elastomer (col 1, ln 13-23).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 11 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.
For at least the above reasons, the application is not in consideration for allowance.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDER A WANG whose telephone number is (571)272-5361. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 8 am-4 pm 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, Alison Hindenlang can be reached on 571-270-7001. 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.
/ALEXANDER A WANG/Examiner, Art Unit 1741
/ALISON L HINDENLANG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1741