DETAILED ACTION
The communication dated 2/19/2026 has been entered and fully considered. Claims 1, 3, 8-11 are amended. Claims 11-13 are new. Claims 1-13 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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues that the amended claim limitation of claim 1 directed to fiber origin overcomes all prior art and rejections.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-10 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.
Applicant argues that there is no motivation to modify prior art, IKENAGA, to arrive at amended claim 1.
Applicant's arguments filed 2/19/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. 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, IKENAGA does not teach organic fiber originating from non-wood sources. KUMAMOTO teaches a similar formed article made from combinations of organic and synthetic (inorganic) fibers [0022]. KUMAMOTO teaches these fibers used are from wood pulp and non-wood pulp [0022]. KUMAMOTO teaches the final product can be made from either a single fiber source or any two in combination [0022]. KUMAMOTO teaches this fiber distribution results in good mechanical strength, retention, and compositional stability [0027]. It would be obvious to one skilled in the art to substitute the fiber composition of KUMAMOTO into the composition of IKENAGA to improve the product properties. One would be motivated to combine the art based on the improved mechanical strength, retention, and compositional stability as taught by KUMAMOTO.
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.
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 8-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over IKENAGA (US 20150361619 A1) in view of KUMAMOTO (US 20080292879 A1).
For claim 8, IKENAGA teaches method to produce a pulp pressed into a molded article [abstract and 0048]. This teaches the limitation of “A method for producing a molded pulp article”. The fiber are prepared into a slurry [abstract]. The molded article uses organic fiber and inorganic fiber [abstract]. The organic fiber has an average length of 0.8 mm or longer and 1.5 mm or shorter [0049]. The organic fiber is present in the composition at 40 parts by mass or less with respect to the 100 parts by mass of the structure (equivalent to 40% or less) [0050]. These ranges overlap the range of the instant claim “the method comprising the steps of: preparing a slurry that contains pulp and water in which a percentage of fibers having a fiber length of 1 mm or less in pulp is in the range of 35% to 50%”. See 2144.05(I). IKENAGA also teaches the fiber slurry is laminated to produce a structure (multidimensional structure) then it is dehydrated [0127]. The intermediate is then deposited onto the cavity of a mold [0128] and heated at 180°C or higher [0131] until dried. This range overlaps the instant claim range. This teaches the limitation of “depositing the pulp on a paper-making mold having a three-dimensional shape to form a pulp layer; dehydrating the pulp layer to obtain an intermediate molded article; and holding the undried intermediate molded article between male and female molds, and heating the intermediate molded article to a temperature in the range of 150°C to 220°C”. IKENAGA further teaches the internal pressure of the mold is maintained at 2 MPa or lower [0130]. This range overlaps the range of the instant claim of “while applying pressure in the range of 0.4 MPa to 4.5 MPa”.
IKENAGA does not teach an embodiment with only organic fiber. KUMAMOTO teaches a formed article made from combinations of organic and synthetic (inorganic) fibers [0022] similar to IKENAGA. KUMAMOTO further teaches the article uses two types of fiber: a long fiber with a length average of 1.5 to 2.5 mm and a short fiber with a length average of 0.3 to 1.0 mm at a ratio of ranging from 30% to 70% for each alternatively [0027] similar to IKENAGA. KUMAMOTO teaches the fibers used are from wood pulp and non-wood pulp sources [0022]. KUMAMOTO teaches the non-wood plant can be straw (stem) [0022]. KUMAMOTO teaches the final product can be made from either a single fiber source or any two in combination [0022]. This creates embodiment where only organic wood pulp or non-wood pulp is used. This teaches the limitation of “wherein the slurry does not contain an inorganic material”. KUMAMOTO teaches this fiber distribution results in good mechanical strength, retention, and compositional stability [0027]. It would be obvious to one skilled in the art to substitute the fiber composition of KUMAMOTO into the composition of IKENAGA to improve the product properties. One would be motivated to combine the art based on the improved mechanical strength, retention, and compositional stability as taught by KUMAMOTO.
For claim 9, IKENAGA and KUMAMOTO teach the method of claim 8, as above. IKENAGA further teaches a hollow elastic core is used as a cover body [0129]. The core is filled through a hole in the cavity [0129] with pressurized fluid. The core is pressed against the inside cavity of the mold [0129]. The negative space between the core and the cavity of the mold is eventually filled by slurry [0129]. This teaches the limitation of “wherein depositing the pulp on a paper-making mold comprises: preparing a cover body as a hollow body having an opening; fixing the paper-making mold to the opening; immersing the paper-making mold fixed to the opening in the slurry; and depressurizing a space surrounded by the cover body and the paper-making mold immersed in the slurry”.
For claim 10, IKENAGA and KUMAMOTO teach the method of claim 9, as above. IKENAGA teaches a papermaking mold is filled with slurry [0287] and the slurry is wrapped around a core [0288]. The examiner understands that the slurry laminate is layered on top of the core and the slurry laminate is layered underneath the papermaking mold. This teaches the limitation of “wherein the paper-making mold is immersed in the slurry such that the paper-making mold is positioned above the cover body”.
For claim 11, IKENAGA and KUMAMOTO teach the method of claim 8, as above. IKENAGA teaches the intermediate is then deposited onto the cavity of a mold [0128] and heated at 180°C or higher [0131] until dried. This range overlaps the instant claim range. IKENAGA further teaches the internal pressure of the mold is maintained at 0.5 MPa or lower [0130]. This range overlaps the range of the instant claim of “wherein the pressurization and heating of the undried intermediate molded article held between the male and female molds is performed under a pressure in the range of 0.4 MPa to 2.0 MPa and at a temperature in the range of 150°C to 200°C, respectively”.
For claim 12, IKENAGA and KUMAMOTO teach the method of claim 8, as above. KUMAMOTO teaches a formed article made from combinations of organic and synthetic (inorganic) fibers [0022]. KUMAMOTO teaches these fibers used are from wood pulp and non-wood pulp [0022]. KUMAMOTO teaches the non-wood plant can be straw (stem) [0022]. KUMAMOTO teaches the final product can be made from either a single fiber source or any two in combination [0022]. This teaches the limitation of “wherein the pulp is selected from the group consisting of a wood pulp and a non-wood pulp, the non-wood pulp is a pulp is a pulp obtained a part of a plant, said part is selected from the group consisting of a bark, a stem, a leaf, and a leaf sheath and fibers of said pulp are the only fibers in the slurry”.
Claims 1-3, 7 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over IKENAGA (US 20150361619 A1) in view of ONO (US 20070207692 A1) and KUMAMOTO (US 20080292879 A1).
For claim 1, IKENAGA teaches a pulp pressed into a molded article [0048]. This teaches the limitation of “A molded pulp article,”. The molded article uses organic fiber and inorganic fiber [abstract]. The organic fiber has an average length of 0.8 mm or longer and 1.5 mm or shorter [0049]. The organic fiber is present in the composition at 40 parts by mass or less with respect to the 100 parts by mass of the structure (equivalent to 40% or less) [0050]. These ranges overlap the range of the instant claim “comprising: a percentage of fibers having a fiber length of 1 mm or less in pulp is in the range of 35% to 50%”. See 2144.05(I). IKENAGA also teaches the use of an inorganic fiber with an average fiber length of 1 mm or longer and 4 mm or shorter [0053]. This range encompasses the range of the instant claim of “the pulp has an average fiber length in the range of 1.2 mm to 1.5 mm”. Given the small range of IKENAGA, it would be obvious to one skilled in the arts at the time of invention to hone the fiber length used without unreasonable experimentation. See 2144.05 (I).
"[A] prior art reference that discloses a range encompassing a somewhat narrower claimed range is sufficient to establish a prima facie case of obviousness." In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379, 1382-83 (Fed. Cir. 2003).
IKENAGA teaches an example with a density of 0.9 g/cm3 [0297]. This value is in the range of the instant claim of “the molded pulp article has a density in the range of 0.65 g/cm3 to 1.3 g/cm3”. IKENAGA does not teach the nitrogen content of the article or the pulp. ONO teaches a similar process of forming a pressed article with pulp [0058].ONO teaches the nitrogen content of the fiber improves the heat -resistance of the fiber [0073]. The cellulose used has a nitrogen content of 0.1% by weight or less (equivalent to 1000 µg/g or less) [0073]. This range overlaps the range of the instant claim of “and the molded pulp article has a nitrogen content in the range of 400 g/g to 2,000 g/g” (equivalent to 0.04%-0.2% by weight). It would be obvious to one skilled in the art to modify the nitrogen content of the pulp in IKENAGA with the nitrogen content from ONO to improve the pulp properties during formation. One would be motivated to combine the art based on the increased heat-resistance as taught by ONO to aid in heated pressing.
IKENAGA does not teach organic fiber originating from non-wood sources. KUMAMOTO teaches a similar formed article made from combinations of organic and synthetic (inorganic) fibers [0022]. KUMAMOTO teaches these fibers used are from wood pulp and non-wood pulp [0022]. KUMAMOTO teaches the non-wood plant can be straw (stem) [0022]. KUMAMOTO teaches the final product can be made from either a single fiber source or any two in combination [0022]. This teaches the limitation of “fibers of a pulp selected from the group consisting of a wood pulp and a non- wood pulp, the non-wood pulp is a pulp is a pulp obtained a part of a plant, said part is selected from the group consisting of a bark, a stem, a leaf, and a leaf sheath” and “said fibers are the only fibers is the molded pulp article”. KUMAMOTO further teaches the article uses two types of fiber: a long fiber with a length average of 1.5 to 2.5 mm and a short fiber with a length average of 0.3 to 1.0 mm at a ratio of ranging from 30% to 70% for each alternatively [0027]. This range closely encompasses the instant claim range of “comprising: a percentage of fibers having a fiber length of 1 mm or less in pulp is in the range of 35% to 50%” similar to IKENAGA. KUMAMOTO teaches this fiber distribution results in good mechanical strength, retention, and compositional stability [0027]. It would be obvious to one skilled in the art to substitute the fiber composition of KUMAMOTO into the composition of IKENAGA to improve the product properties. One would be motivated to combine the art based on the improved mechanical strength, retention, and compositional stability as taught by KUMAMOTO.
For claim 2, IKENAGA, ONO, and KUMAMOTO teach the molded pulp article of claim 1, as above. IKENAGA does not teach the thickness of the article. ONO teaches a pressed sheet product with a thickness of 500 µm or less (equivalent to 0.5 mm or less) [0086]. This range abuts the range of the instant claim of “wherein the molded pulp article has a thickness in the range of 0.5 mm to 1 mm”. See 2144.05(I).
For claim 3, IKENAGA, ONO, and KUMAMOTO teach the molded pulp article of claim 1, as above. IKENAGA teaches an example with a density of 0.8 g/cm3 [0278]. This value is in the range of the instant claim of “wherein the molded pulp article has a density in the range of 0.65 g/cm3 to 0.80 g/cm3”. ONO teaches the cellulose used has the nitrogen content of 0.1% by weight or less (equivalent to 1000 µg/g or less) [0073]. This range encompasses the range of the instant claim of “and the molded pulp article has the nitrogen content in the range of 500 g/g to 1,000 g/g” (equivalent to 0.05%-0.1% by weight).
For claim 7, IKENAGA, ONO, and KUMAMOTO teach the molded pulp article of claim 1, as above. KUMAMOTO teaches the molded article can be a container [0076]. This teaches the limitation of “wherein the molded pulp article is a container”.
For claim 13, IKENAGA, ONO, and KUMAMOTO teach the method of claim 2, as above. . IKENAGA teaches an example with a density of 0.8 g/cm3 [0278]. This value is in the range of the instant claim of “the molded pulp article has the density in the range of 0.7 g/cm3 to 0.95 g/cm3”. ONO teaches the cellulose used has the nitrogen content of 0.1% by weight or less (equivalent to 1000 µg/g or less) [0073]. This range is within the range of the instant claim of “and the molded pulp article has the nitrogen content in the range of 500 µg/g to 2,000 µg/g”.
Claims 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over IKENAGA (US 20150361619 A1), ONO (US 20070207692 A1), and KUMAMOTO (US 20080292879 A1) in view of ASAYAMA (US 20020012759 A1).
For claim 4, IKENAGA, ONO, and KUMAMOTO teach the molded pulp article of claim 1, as above. Neither IKENAGA nor ONO teach the tensile properties of the non-woven shaped product. ASAYAMA teaches a similar pressed product made of fiber slurry [abstract]. ASAYAMA teaches a similar density to IKENAGA of above 0.9 g/cm3 aids in stiffness characteristics [0089]. ASAYAMA teaches that is desirable to have a higher stiffness [0089]. ASAYAMA also teaches that the molded product should have a tensile strength of at least 2.0 kN/m [abstract]. This range encompasses the range of the instant claim of “wherein the molded pulp article has a tensile strength in the range of 30 kN/m to 55 kN/m”. See 2144.05(I). It would be obvious to one skilled in the arts at the time of invention to try increasing the density of the product to increase the tensile strength of the final paper product. One would be motivated by the increased strength and durability as taught by ASAYAMA.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over IKENAGA (US 20150361619 A1), ONO (US 20070207692 A1), and KUMAMOTO (US 20080292879 A1) in view of TAMAGAWA (US 20070148418 A1).
For claim 5, IKENAGA, ONO, and KUMAMOTO teach the molded pulp article of claim 1, as above. Neither IKENAGA nor ONO teach the peel properties of the non-woven shaped product. TAMAGAWA teaches a similar fiber slurry (referred to as stock) [0024] that is pressed into a shape [0075]. TAMAGAWA also teaches that the weaker the inter-fiber bonding the easier it is for blistering to occur [0006]. TAMAGAWA further teaches that blisters cause a substantial amount of nonuniformity of images and degradation in stiffness, curling properties, and convey ability [0018]. TAMAGAWA teaches that the ideal range of tensile strength is between 400 kN/m2 to 550 kN/m2 (equivalent to 0.4 N/mm2 to 0.55 N/mm2) [0018]. This suggested range is within the range of the instant claim of “wherein the molded pulp article has a peeling strength in the range of 0.3 N/mm2 to 0.9 N/mm2”. It would be obvious to one skilled in the arts at the time of invention to modify the structure of IKENAGA to improve the tensile strength to a level that avoids blistering based on the teaching of TAMAGAWA. One would be motivated to modify the art based on the added benefit of avoiding degradation in stiffness, curling properties, and convey ability as taught by TAMAGAWA.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over IKENAGA (US 20150361619 A1), ONO (US 20070207692 A1), and KUMAMOTO (US 20080292879 A1) in view of REED (US 20190233974 A1).
For claim 6, IKENAGA, ONO, and KUMAMOTO teach the molded pulp article of claim 1, as above. Neither IKENAGA nor ONO teach the basis weight standard deviation of the non-woven shaped product. REED teaches a similar fibrous composite structure [abstract] that is compressed into shape [0091]. REED teaches the basis weight of a fibrous structure is in the range of about 40 to 200 gsm [0046] and the basis weight standard deviation is less than 15% [0195] (equivalent to about 6-30 gsm). This range is within the range of the instant claim of “wherein the molded pulp article has a standard deviation of basis weight in the range of 2 g/m2 to 30 g/m2”. It would be obvious to one skilled in the arts at the time of invention to try standardizing the basis weight of the product to increase the consistency of the final paper product. One would be motivated by the success of the final product as taught by REED.
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 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 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
Prosecution Insights