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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 8/18/2026 has been entered.
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.
Claim(s) 1-7 and 18-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Di Natale et al. (US Patent No. 5,376,327), hereinafter Di Natale, in view of Larsson et al. (US 2019/0070819), hereinafter Larsson.
Regarding claims 1-3 and 18, Di Natale discloses a method for production of three-dimensional molded parts from a fiber containing material, having the following steps:
(a) providing separated fibers (“chopped reinforcement fibers 14” – 5:61-5:65) to a premolding device (“apparatus for forming a contoured preform 12” – 3:12-3:20; Figs. 1-3) including a premold (“screen 28”) having a shape and form corresponding to a shape and form of a 3D part (3:16-3:20) to be produced (Fig. 4),
and (b) arranging the separated fibers at the premold to form at least one preform made of the fibers having the shape and form of the premold (as shown in Fig. 3); and
(c) pressing the at least one preform to from at least one 3D molded part (ref. claim 1 states that the result of the vacuum is to “compact” the chopped fibers) at the premolding device after arranging the separated fibers to form the at least one preform.
Di Natale does not explicitly disclose that the pressing occur discontinuously with the arrangement of the fibers, and under one potential reading of the claims/prior art, may not be viewed as describing that the pressing forms the 3D object (and instead forms the preform).
Like Di Natale above, Larsson discloses a method for production of three-dimensional molded parts (Larsson, par. 0017) having the following steps: (a) providing separated fibers (“detached cellulose fibers 12 may be drawn from the separating unit 13” – par. 0055; see also par. 0053-0054; Fig. 1);
(b) arranging the separated fibers to form at least one preform (“the cellulose fibers 12 are drawn by the vacuum in the vacuum box 24 onto the forming wire 14” – par. 0055; which forms a cellulose “blank” or preform), and specifically, (c) pressing the at least one preform to form a three-dimensional molded part (“the cellulose blank 1a is arranged in the forming mold 3 . . . and then pressed in the forming mold 3”; Fig. 1; par. 0058). Figure 1 shows the three-dimensional product (container) being removed at the right side of the drawing. The pressing is conducted discontinuously with the arrangement of fibers.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have specified that the pressing occurs discontinuously as provided in Larsson, as a substitutable alternative to that of Di Natale. In both cases, a 3D object would have been produced, whether or not the pressing occurs discontinuously or continuously as to form the 3D part. As one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success from having used either a discontinuous/continuous process of producing the item, this further supports the case of obviousness as outlined above.
With respect to the providing separated fibers in a positive flow of a transport medium, Larsson, Fig. 1, element 22, demonstrates that this is known in the art with respect to the blowing of fibers. Also, Di Natale, see Figs. 2-3, would seem to have a “feed duct” under BRI as the dome shaped lid (46) would have walls that cerate a “duct” under BRI, as this is not limited in shape. See also Di Natale at 4:23-4:27 including a fiber chamber to be opened allowing the fibers to enter the housing and would flow through the air current that has been established due to the differential pressure created in the system. Di Natale, at 4:50, refers to the orientation being reversible as well, with respect to the screen (28) being used to form the fibers.
Regarding claim 2, Di Natale/Larsson discloses the subject matter of claim 1, and further discloses compacting the detached cellulose fibers to form the blank or preform (Larsson, par. 0031) which would read upon the “pre-pressing” step as this forms the preform and the “pressing” step in claim 1 forms the object.
Regarding claims 3 and 18, Di Natale/Larsson discloses the subject matter of claim 1, and further discloses that the arranging of the separated fibers and the pressing of the preform take place continuously and coordinately or can be done discontinuously (Larsson, par. 0061 describes “intermittently” and par. 0062 describes “constant speed” or continuously; par. 0064).
Regarding claim 4, Di Natale/Larsson discloses the subject matter of claim 1, and further discloses that fibers made of a fiber-containing material are separated for a provision in an upstream step (under BRI, this “upstream step” is undefined and viewed broadly, and would necessarily occur upstream from “providing separated fibers” (see Larsson, par. 0053-0054 describing a separation of fibers in a separating unit 13).
Regarding claim 5, Di Natale/Larsson discloses the subject matter of claim 1, and further discloses that the pressing of the at least one preform to form the part takes place under an action of heat (Larsson, par. 0058 describes heating to a forming temperature and pressing).
Regarding claim 6, Di Natale/Larsson discloses the subject matter of claim 1, and further discloses that the separated fibers (of at least one premold) are fed to a premolding device, wherein the separated fibers are uniformly distributed on a surface of the premold and the premold corresponds to the shape of the molded part to be produced (Larsson, par. 0049 explains that “the blank may be presented to the forming mold in a shape similar to the desired final shape of the object”). The “forming wire 14” is considered to read upon the “premold” and is shown in a flat shape in the drawings, but described in the disclosure (Larsson, par. 0049) that the blank can be provided to the mold in the desired shape, which means that one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that necessarily, the premold must in some embodiments have this shape as well.
See also: the premolding device of DiNatale as outlined above.
Regarding claim 7, Di Natale/Larsson discloses the subject matter of claim 6, and further discloses that after the premolding, the at least one preform (or blank) is transferred to a molding device (Larsson, par. 0049) and the at least one preform is pressed (par. 0058) to form the part.
Regarding claims 19-21, Di Natale/Larsson discloses the subject matter of claim 1, and further discloses that the feed duct has a wall (46) that forms a sealed space (34) between the wall and a surface of the premold (screen 28) and is sealed from the environment using sealing means (47) (Fig. 2) (Di Natale, 4:35-4:65).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/17/2026 as referred to in the 8/18/2026 submission have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
First, in Di Natale, the agitation of the fibers (see Fig. 2) is caused by adding a positive pressure and could be viewed as a positive flow of a transport medium, as the agitation causes the fibers to move in the direction of flow of the air. However, additionally, Larsson, Fig. 1, demonstrates how fibers can be provided through a feed duct coupled with a blower (22), demonstrating that this is known in the art for purposes of distribution of fibers in a similar context.
While Di Natale does not specifically illustrate this feature, at 5:29-5:37, the reference does describe dropping the fibers into the system which would cause the air to positively transport them through the duct created by the access opening (56), and in combination with the negative pressure of the chamber (36) with respect to the chamber (34) (Di Natale, Figs. 2-3). See also, Di Natale, 4:23-4:27, discussed above in the updated rejection. Accordingly, the rejections are maintained as updated above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW D GRAHAM whose telephone number is (469)295-9232. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30AM-4:00PM (CST).
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, Christina Johnson can be reached at (571) 272-1176. 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.
/ANDREW D GRAHAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1742
Prosecution Insights