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 Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the amended 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.
Applicant has amended the claims to require that the second screen has a surface and the plurality of openings are dispersed across the entire surface. The arguments in view of the new amended are persuasive as it is not explicitly taught, but a upon a new search a new rejection will be presented below.
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 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Intscher-Owrang et al, US Patent Publication 2022/0072806 in view of Gale et al, USP 6,287,428.
Regarding claim 1, Intscher-Owrang teaches a method for forming an article (method of making at least a portion of a garment, abstract), comprising: providing an apparatus (mold apparatus 15, Fig. 5) containing a first molding screen (mold portion 30, Figs. 5-9) and a second molding screen (mold portion 26, Figs. 5-9), the first and second molding screens combining to at least partially define a void (see gap G1, Fig.6), the first molding screen includes a plurality of openings and the second molding screen includes a plurality of openings (mold portions 26, 30 are each porous or have holes that are generally less than 1 mm in effective diameter to allow liquid to pass therethrough but to prevent the molded material from exiting the mold portions 26, 30, [0062]); forming an aqueous slurry that contains an amount of water [0039] and includes a plurality of fibers (slurry contains fibers, [0039]); adding the aqueous slurry to a void between the first and second molding screens (foam is poured into the mold apparatus 15 between the lower porous mold 26 and the upper porous mold 30, para. 0061);
draining at least some of the water from the aqueous slurry through at least one opening in at least one of the first and second molding screens (liquid drains through porous molds 26, 30, para. 0062; water may need to be removed from the slurry once it has been poured, para. 0039); applying heat (heat may be applied after draining, para. 0039, see also para. 0064) and pressure (pressure may be applied via vacuum bagging or pheumatic/hydraulic presses, para. 0050, see also para. 0064) to the aqueous slurry to substantially remove all of the water from the slurry and to bond at least some of the plurality of fibers together to form a final solid fibrous molded part (pressure is used to further bond fibers and remove any excess solvent, para. 0050, see also para. 0064; final desired shape is created in molded part, para. 0065).
Intscher-Owrang is silent to the second screen defines a surface and the plurality of openings are dispersed across the substantially the entire surface. The positioning of the openings across the entire screen is not expressly stated.
In the same field of endeavor of wet molding a curved or complex surface, Gale teaches that a mold surface should have an integral screen or latticework with a plurality of spaced apart openings which are spaced substantially uniformly across the mold surface (column 3 lines 10-31) for the benefit of allowing the vacuum to pull the shape of the mold without the fibers form the pulp puling through the openings to allow for a curved or complex surface to be molded with limited downtime during operation (see column 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the mold and method of Intscher-Owrang with the teachings of utilizing a plurality of openings across the entire surface of the second mold surface as taught by Gale for the benefit of allowing for extended operation without clogging and misused of the apparatus in a known and conventional manner.
Regarding claim 2, Intscher-Owrang discloses the method of claim 1, and further Intscher-Owrang discloses the plurality of fibers (slurry contains fibers, para. 0039) includes at least one type of natural fiber (natural fibers such as wood fibers may be used, para. 0042).
Regarding claim 3, Intscher-Owrang discloses the method of claim 1, and further Intscher-Owrang discloses the plurality of fibers (slurry contains fibers, para. 0039) includes at least one type of synthetic fiber (synthetic fibers such as viscose rayon or modal may be used, para. 0042).
Regarding claim 4, Intscher-Owrang discloses the method of claim 1, and further Intscher-Owrang discloses the plurality of fibers (slurry contains fibers, para. 0039) includes at least one type of natural fiber and one type of synthetic fiber (combination of natural and synthetic fibers may be used, para. 0042).
Regarding claim 5, Intscher-Owrang discloses the method of claim 1, and further Intscher-Owrang discloses the aqueous slurry (slurry, para. 0039; slurry suspension is aerated to create a wet foam, para. 0045) includes at least one of the following: a starch (slurry suspension includes a starch, para. 0044), a surfactant, a water retention agent, a viscosifier, a crosslinker, a binding agent, a pH modifier and a charge modifier.
Regarding claim 6, Intscher-Owrang discloses the method of claim 1, and further Intscher-Owrang discloses the first molding screen (mold portion 30, Figs. 5-9) includes a secondary relief pattern (indentations 48, Fig. 9A) that imparts a surface feature on the final fibrous molded part ("one or more of the mold portions 26,30 may include one or more features [e.g., indentations] 48. The indentations 48 can be used for a wide variety of purposes including, but not limited to, adding texture to the garment," para. 0066).
Regarding claim 7, Intscher-Owrang discloses the method of claim 1, and further Intscher-Owrang discloses the second molding screen (mold portion 26, Figs. 5-9) includes a secondary relief pattern (indentations 48, Fig. 9A) that imparts a surface feature on the final fibrous molded part ("one or more of the mold portions 26,30 may include one or more features [e.g., indentations] 48. The indentations 48 can be used for a wide variety of purposes including, but not limited to, adding texture to the garment," para. 0066).
Claim(s) 8-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Intscher-Owrang et al, US Patent Publication 2022/0072806 in view of Gale et al, USP 6,287,428 and in further view of Yamanaka, US Patent Publication 2006/0162384.
Regarding claim 8, Intscher-Owrang discloses an apparatus for molding a fibrous molded article (mold apparatus 15, Fig. 5; method of making at least a portion of a garment, abstract), comprising: a source for providing an aqueous slurry (slurry, para. 0039; slurry suspension is aerated to create a wet foam, para. 0045) that contains an amount of water (slurry includes water, para. 0039) and a plurality of fibers (slurry contains fibers, para. 0039); a first molding screen (mold portion 30, Figs. 5-9), the first molding screen having a plurality of openings (mold portions 26, 30 are each porous or have holes that are generally less than 1 mm in effective diameter to allow liquid to pass therethrough but to prevent the molded material from exiting the mold portions 26, 30, para. 0062); a second molding screen (mold portion 26, Figs. 5-9), the second molding screen having a plurality of openings (mold portions 26, 30 are each porous or have holes that are generally less than 1 mm in effective diameter to allow liquid to pass therethrough but to prevent the molded material from exiting the mold portions 26, 30, para. 0062); wherein the first and second molding screens at least partially form a void (see gap G1, Fig. 6) that is intended to receive an amount of the aqueous slurry (foam is poured into the mold apparatus 15 between the lower porous mold 26 and the upper porous mold 30, para. 0061); wherein the apparatus includes a heat (heat may be applied after draining, para. 0039, see also para. 0064) and pressure source (pressure may be applied via vacuum bagging or pneumatic/hydraulic presses, para. 0050, see also para. 0064) that removes at least some of the water from the aqueous slurry (liquid drains through porous molds 26, 30, para. 0062; water may need to be removed from the slurry once it has been poured, para. 0039) and bonds the plurality of fibers to one another resulting in the fibrous molded article (pressure is used to further bond fibers and remove any excess solvent, para. 0050, see also para. 0064; final desired shape is created in molded part, para. 0065).
Intscher-Owrang is silent to the second screen defines a surface and the plurality of openings are dispersed across the substantially the entire surface. The positioning of the openings across the entire screen is not expressly stated.
In the same field of endeavor of wet molding a curved or complex surface, Gale teaches that a mold surface should have an integral screen or latticework with a plurality of spaced apart openings which are spaced substantially uniformly across the mold surface (column 3 lines 10-31) for the benefit of allowing the vacuum to pull the shape of the mold without the fibers form the pulp puling through the openings to allow for a curved or complex surface to be molded with limited downtime during operation (see column 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the mold and method of Intscher-Owrang with the teachings of utilizing a plurality of openings across the entire surface of the second mold surface as taught by Gale for the benefit of allowing for extended operation without clogging and misused of the apparatus in a known and conventional manner.
Intscher-Owrang is silent as to a first pressing unit; a second pressing unit; a pressing chamber sleeve slidably engaged with the first pressing unit and the second pressing unit.
In the same field of endeavor of press molds, Yamanaka teaches a first pressing unit (upper mold 10, Fig. 1); a second pressing unit (lower mold 20, Fig. 1); a pressing chamber sleeve (sleeve 30, Fig. 1) slidably engaged with the first pressing unit and the second pressing unit (sleeve 30 serves to slidingly guide the upper and lower molds 10 and 20, para. 0044).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to combine the sleeve of Yamanaka with the mold of Intscher-Owrang for the benefit of providing a horizontal stabilizer to the mold portions (as taught by Yamanaka [0044]) in a known and conventional manner.
Regarding claim 9, Intscher-Owrang further teaches the size of the openings in the first molding screen (mold portion 30, Figs. 5-9) are between approximately 1mm to approximately 50 mm in diameter (mold portions 26, 30 are each porous or have holes that are generally less than 1 mm in effective diameter to allow liquid to pass therethrough but to prevent the molded material from exiting the mold portions 26, 30, para. 0062).
Regarding claim 10, Intscher-Owrang further teaches the size of the openings in the first molding screen (mold portion 30, Figs. 5-9) are between 0.5mm and approximately 10mm in diameter (mold portions 26, 30 are each porous or have holes that are generally less than 1 mm in effective diameter to allow liquid to pass therethrough but to prevent the molded material from exiting the mold portions 26, 30, para. 0062).
Regarding claim 11, Intscher-Owrang further teaches the size of the openings in the first molding screen (mold portion 30, Figs. 5-9) are between 0.5mm and approximately 2mm in diameter (mold portions 26, 30 are each porous or have holes that are generally less than 1 mm in effective diameter to allow liquid to pass therethrough but to prevent the molded material from exiting the mold portions 26, 30, para. 0062).
Regarding claim 12, Intscher-Owrang further teaches the size of the openings in the second molding screen (mold portion 26, Figs. 5-9) are between approximately 0.5mm to approximately 50 mm in diameter (mold portions 26, 30 are each porous or have holes that are generally less than 1 mm in effective diameter to allow liquid to pass therethrough but to prevent the molded material from exiting the mold portions 26, 30, para. 0062).
Regarding claim 13, Intscher-Owrang further teaches the size of the openings in the second molding screen (mold portion 26, Figs. 5-9) are between 0.5mm and approximately 10mm in diameter (mold portions 26, 30 are each porous or have holes that are generally less than 1 mm in effective diameter to allow liquid to pass therethrough but to prevent the molded material from exiting the mold portions 26, 30, para. 0062).
Regarding claim 14, Intscher-Owrang further teaches the size of the openings in the second molding screen (mold portion 26, Figs. 5-9) are between 0.5mm and approximately 10mm in diameter (mold portions 26, 30 are each porous or have holes that are generally less than 1 mm in effective diameter to allow liquid to pass therethrough but to prevent the molded material from exiting the mold portions 26, 30, para. 0062).
Regarding claim 15, Intscher-Owrang further teaches the first molding screen (mold portion 30, Figs. 5-9) includes at least one secondary relief feature (indentations 48, Fig. 9A) that imparts one or more features onto a surface of the solid fibrous molded article ("one or more of the mold portions 26,30 may include one or more features [e.g., indentations] 48. The indentations 48 can be used for a wide variety of purposes including, but not limited to, adding texture to the garment," para. 0066).
Regarding claim 16, Intscher-Owrang further teaches the second molding screen (mold portion 26, Figs. 5-9) includes at least one secondary relief feature (indentations 48, Fig. 9A) that imparts one or more features onto a surface of the fibrous molded article ("one or more of the mold portions 26,30 may include one or more features [e.g., indentations] 48. The indentations 48 can be used for a wide variety of purposes including, but not limited to, adding texture to the garment," para. 0066).
Regarding claim 17, Intscher-Owrang further teaches the source for providing an aqueous slurry (slurry, para. 0039; slurry suspension is aerated to create a wet foam, para. 0045) that contains an amount of water (slurry includes water, para. 0039) and a plurality of fibers (slurry contains fibers, para. 0039) also includes at least one of a starch (slurry suspension includes a starch, para. 0044), a surfactant, a water retention agent, a viscosifier, a crosslinker, a binding agent, a pH modifier and a charge modifier mixed therein.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-17 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being
unpatentable over the claims of U.S. Patent application 17/466792. Although the claims
at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the
same basic steps of utilizing a screen with a void in part of a mold to add a slurry that
contains fibers into it to apply pressure and form an article is still taught in both
applications. The difference are obvious variant and extra steps that further define but
would still read on the instant application.
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 JACOB T MINSKEY whose telephone number is (571)270-7003. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-6 PM.
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 5712707475. 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.
JACOB T. MINSKEY
Examiner
Art Unit 1741
/JACOB T MINSKEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1748
Prosecution Insights