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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 05/20/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Applicant amendment filed 05/20/2026 has been filed and is currently under consideration. Claims 1-10, 14-15, 17, 19, 22, and 24-25 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) 10, 14-15, 17, 19, and 24-25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Asayama et al. (US2002/0012759 of record) hereinafter Asayama in view of Laursen et al. (US4640810 of record) hereinafter Laursen and Buhler et al. (US4788023) hereinafter Buhler.
Regarding claim 10, Asayama teaches:
A cellulose product forming apparatus for manufacturing a cellulose product having an essentially non-flat shape (Fig 1a: male mold 1, female mold 2; [0095]), the cellulose product forming apparatus comprising:
a forming mould for forming the cellulose product comprising a pre-heated negative non-flexible pressure mould part pre-heated to a forming temperature (Fig 1a: female mold 2; [0138, 142]) and a pre-heated positive non-flexible forming mould part pre-heated to a forming temperature (Fig 1a: male mold 1; [0138, 142]);
wherein the cellulose product forming apparatus is arranged to compress a cellulose blank in the forming mould with a forming pressure ([0144]),
wherein the forming pressure is configured to be applied to the air-laid cellulose blank, the air-laid cellulose sheet or the continuous cellulose web cellulose blank by direct mechanical contact with the pre-heated positive non-flexible forming mould part and the pre-heated negative non-flexible pressure mould part, without applying the forming pressure via a pressure medium or a flexible membrane (Fig 1; [0144]).
Asayama does not explicitly recite a forming temperature in the range of 1000C to 2000C and a forming pressure of at least 1 MPa.
However, Asayama teaches a range of values for the forming temperature and forming pressure that overlaps with the claimed ranges ([0139, 0144]).
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 Asayama that overlaps with the claimed range.
Asayama does not teach a dry forming unit for forming an air-laid cellulose blank, an air-laid cellulose sheet or a continuous cellulose web;
In the same field of endeavor regarding fiber products, Laursen teaches dry forming an air laid cellulose blank in a dry forming unit for the motivation of optimizing the use of increasingly costly raw materials (Fig 2; col 2, ln 31-36; col 5, ln 63-col 16, ln 15).
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 apparatus and cellulose blanks as taught by Asayama to use the dry forming unit as taught by Laursen in order to optimize the use of increasingly costly raw materials when forming cellulose blanks.
Asayama in view of Laursen does not teach wherein a cavity thickness between the lower pre-heated positive non-flexible forming mould part and the upper pre-heated negative non-flexible pressure mould part, in a closed state of the forming mould, deviates from nominal even thickness, wherein the deviation is established to create an isostatic forming pressure on every portion of cellulose blank towards the mould parts when the mould parts are pressed together with the forming pressure.
In the same field of endeavor regarding molding, Buhler teaches a cavity thickness between two forming mold parts, in a closed state of the forming mold, deviates from nominal even thickness, wherein the deviation is established to create an isostatic forming pressure on every portion of cellulose blank towards the mold parts when the mold parts are pressed together with the forming pressure for the motivation of providing uniform compression without requiring traditional isostatic molding equipment (Fig 1: mold half 10, 30; col 2, ln 19-29).
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 apparatus as taught by Asayama in view of Laursen with the uniform compressing as taught by Buhler in order to provide uniform compression without requiring traditional isostatic molding equipment.
Regarding claim 14, Asayama in view of Laursen and Buhler teaches the apparatus of claim 10.
Laursen further teaches the dry forming unit comprises:
a separating unit for separating cellulose into detached cellulose fibres (col 6, ln 16-25);
a forming wire for the cellulose fibres (col 5, ln 18-38); and
a compacting unit for compacting the cellulose fibres to form the cellulose blank (col 5, ln 18-38).
Regarding claim 15, Asayama in view of Laursen and Buhler teaches the apparatus of claim 10.
Laursen further teaches an application unit configured to apply sizing agents or other substances to the cellulose fibres (col 18, ln 1-28).
Regarding claim 17, Asayama in view of Laursen and Buhler teaches the apparatus of claim 10.
Asayama further teaches feeding a cellulose web into the forming mold ([0137]).
Laursen further teaches the continuous cellulose web is intermittently fed to a downstream process by a feeding unit (Fig 1; col 11, ln 62-col 12, ln 8).
Regarding claim 19, Asayama in view of Laursen and Buhler teaches the apparatus of claim 10.
Asayama in view of Laursen does not explicitly recite wherein the cellulose product formed by the compressed cellulose material is cut to its final shape after being ejected from the forming mould.
However, the examiner notes that the above limitations are not directed to the structure or function of the claimed apparatus and therefore does not patentably distinguish over the prior art.
Regarding claim 24, Asayama in view of Laursen and Buhler teaches the apparatus of claim 14.
Laursen further teaches wherein the cellulose product forming apparatus is arranged to collect residual cellulose fibers not used in the cellulose product and feed the residual cellulose fibers back to a separating unit (col 9, ln 26-44; col 15, ln 42-66).
Regarding claim 25, Asayama in view of Laursen and Buhler teaches the apparatus of claim 14.
Laursen teaches wherein the cellulose product forming apparatus is arranged to use a roll of fluff pulp as raw material and is arranged to feed the raw material into the separating unit (col 9, ln 26-44; col 15, ln 42-66; applicant specification discloses that a conventional hammermill is configured to use a roll of fluff pulp as raw material).
Claim(s) 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Asayama in view of Laursen and Buhler as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Seeberger et al (US5904643 of record) hereinafter Seeberger.
Regarding claim 22, Asayama in view of Laursen and Buhler teaches the apparatus of claim 10.
Asayama in view of Laursen and Buhler does not teach wherein the forming mould is provided with a cutting device for cutting the cellulose product free of unwanted residual compressed or un-compressed cellulose fibres in the same pressing motion as when forming the cellulose product in the forming mould.
In the same field of endeavor regarding fiber products, Seeberger teaches forming a container from a paper blank with a forming mould provided with a cutting device for cutting the cellulose product free of unwanted residual compressed or un-compressed cellulose fibres in the same pressing motion as when forming the cellulose product in the forming mould for the motivation of making possible higher quality products (Fig 5a-5f: knife edge 104; col 2, ln 51-63; col 8, ln 50-col 9, ln 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 forming as taught by Asayama in view of Laursen and Buhler with the simultaneous forming and cutting as taught by Seeberger in order to make possible higher quality products.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 05/20/2026 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 condition 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 at 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
Prosecution Insights