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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant amendment filed 10/15/2025 has been filed and is currently under consideration. Claims 1-15, 17, and 19-25 remain pending in the application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 15, 21, and 23-25 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 15 is rendered indefinite because it is not clear if the application unit is required structure.
The term “similar” in claim 21 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “similar” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. For example, in all illustrated embodiments of the applicant drawings, the blank is presented to the forming mould in a substantially flat two dimensional shape that is then formed into a three dimensional concave shape. It is not clear how a substantially flat two dimensional shape is similar to a three dimensional concave shape.
Claim 23 recites the limitation "the deviation". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of compact prosecution, the claim has been interpreted to depend from claim 11.
Claim 24 recites the limitation "the ". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The claim is further rendered indefinite because it is not clear if the separating unit is required structure.
Claim 25 recites the limitation "the ". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The claim is further rendered indefinite because it is not clear if the separating unit is required structure.
All claims dependent on the above rejected claims are rejected as well because they include all the limitations of the rejected claims.
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) 10-12, 14-15, 17, 19-21, and 24 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.
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]).
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.
Regarding claim 11, Asayama in view of Laursen teaches the apparatus of claim 10.
Asayama further teaches wherein a cavity thickness (t(P)) between the lower pre-heated positive non-flexible forming mould part and the upper pre-heated negative non-flexible pressure mould part deviates from nominal even thickness where a deviation is established to create a forming pressure on every portion of cellulose blank towards the mould parts when the mould parts are pressed together with a force (Fig 1a-b; [0137, 0143]).
Regarding claim 12, Asayama in view of Laursen teaches the apparatus of claim 10.
Asayama further teaches wherein the negative non-flexible forming mould part and positive non-flexible forming mould part are arranged to form a preferred equal and nominal cavity thickness (Fig 1a).
Asayama in view of Laursen does not explicitly recite wherein the cellulose blank has a pressure compensated thickness between tmin tmax to create a forming pressure on every portion of cellulose blank towards the mould parts when the mould parts are pressed together with a force.
However, inclusion of the material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims. See MPEP 2115.
Regarding claim 14, Asayama in view of Laursen 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 teaches the apparatus of claim 10.
Laursen further teaches sizing agents or other substances are applied to the cellulose fibres by an application unit (col 18, ln 1-28).
Regarding claim 17, Asayama in view of Laursen 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 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 20, Asayama in view of Laursen teaches the apparatus of claim 10.
Laursen further teaches the air-laid cellulose blank or the air-laid cellulose sheet.
Asayama further teaches wherein cellulose blank is pre-shaped into a three-dimensional object (Fig 1a-b; [0141]).
Regarding claim 21, Asayama in view of Laursen teaches the apparatus of claim 10.
Asayama in view of Laursen does not teach wherein the air-laid cellulose blank or the air-laid cellulose sheet is presented to the forming mould in a shape similar to the desired final shape of the cellulose product.
However, inclusion of the material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims. See MPEP 2115.
Regarding claim 24, Asayama in view of Laursen 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).
Claim(s) 13, 23, and 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Asayama in view of Laursen as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Henrio et al. (US2016/0297153 of record) hereinafter Henrio.
Regarding claim 13, Asayama in view of Laursen teaches the apparatus of claim 10.
Asayama in view of Laursen does not teach wherein the cellulose product forming apparatus is arranged to exert an isostatic forming pressure.
In the same field of endeavor regarding fiber products, Henrio teaches a fiber product forming apparatus arranged to exert an isostatic forming pressure for the motivation of enabling the mechanical strength of the resulting part impregnated by an impregnation composition to be increased ([0051-0056]).
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 isostatic pressing as taught by Henrio in order to enable the mechanical strength of the resulting part impregnated by an impregnation composition to be increased.
Regarding claim 23, Asayama in view of Laursen teaches the apparatus of claim 11.
Asayama further teaches wherein the deviation is configured to create a pressure on every portion of cellulose blank towards the mould parts when the mould parts are pressed together with the force (Fig 1a-b; [0137, 0143]).
Asayama in view of Laursen wherein the deviation is configured to create an isostatic pressure.
In the same field of endeavor regarding fiber products, Henrio teaches a fiber product forming apparatus arranged to exert an isostatic forming pressure for the motivation of enabling the mechanical strength of the resulting part impregnated by an impregnation composition to be increased ([0051-0056]).
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 isostatic pressing as taught by Henrio in order to enable the mechanical strength of the resulting part impregnated by an impregnation composition to be increased.
Regarding claim 25, Asayama in view of Laursen and Henrio teaches the apparatus of claim 23.
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).
Furthermore, inclusion of the material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims. See MPEP 2115.
Claim(s) 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Asayama in view of Laursen 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 teaches the apparatus of claim 10.
Asayama in view of Laursen 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 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 10/15/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Asayama cannot be combined because Asayama is only directed to a wet-formed base paper and Laursen is directed to an air-laid cellulose web. However, Asayama is directed to a producing a molded vessel from a cellulose blank sheet made of a molding base paper ([0001, 0124, 0136]). Laursen is directed to a air forming systems for forming sheets from cellulose fibers (col 1, ln 6-11; col 6, ln 16-25). Both are related to the same field of endeavor regarding fiber products. Applicant presents various embodiments of each reference in an attempt to show a teaching away of each reference from the other. However, all of the examples provided by applicant are preferred embodiments. Disclosed examples and preferred embodiments do not constitute a teaching away from a broader disclosure or nonpreferred embodiments. See MPEP 2123. Laursen in particular is explicitly open to modification (col 20, ln 62-67). The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981). Furthermore, applicant has not provided any evidence beyond attorney arguments that any of the proposed modifications relied upon in the art rejection above would render the prior art device inoperable, and attorney arguments cannot take the place of evidence.
Applicant argues that there is no suggestion to compress air-laid cellulose webs to form three dimensional objects. However, as explained in the art rejection, Asayama teaches compressing cellulose webs to form three dimensional objects. 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.
Applicant argues that Asayama does not teach the cavity thickness deviates from nominal even thickness. Applicant arguments appear to mistakenly be directed to the rejection of claim 15. Nevertheless, contrary to applicants assertions, Asayama teaches that “The clearance between the upper mold and the lower mold can be controlled by hydraulic or air pressure method” ([0143]). Therefore the clearance of the cavity can be adjusted from a clearance having a thickness where a thickness of the clearance is even to a thicker or thinner thickness, i.e., the thickness of the cavity can be deviated from a nominal even thickness. Applicant argues that the cavity thickness in Asayama is constant. However, it is not clear why this fact, if true, would prevent Asayama from reading on claim 11. Applicant appears to be giving the claim term “nominal even thickness” an inappropriately narrow scope and attempting to define the claim term to mean that the cavity thickness is non-uniform or non-constant. The examiner notes that there is no special definition or disavowal of scope in applicant specification, and therefore the claim term must be given its plain meaning under BRI. See MPEP 2111.01. Even if the above scope were applied, Fig 1b of Asayama shows the corner portions of the sheet 3 having a different thickness than the straight portions.
For at least the above reasons, the application is not in condition for allowance.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 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