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 .
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) 1-8 and 18 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.
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 claim 8, Di Natale/Larsson discloses the subject matter of claim 6, and further discloses that the separated fibers are blown onto the surface of the premold (Larsson, par. 0055) or sucked to the surface of the mold (par. 0004).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to all claims 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.
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 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