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
The Amendments filed 11/13/2025 responsive to the Office Action filed 10/22/2025 has been entered. Claim 1 has been amended. Claims 5-11 have been canceled. Claims 1-4 remain pending in this application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, filed 11/13/2025 in pages 4-5, with respect to claim 1 under 103 rejection, especially Piana et al. (US 2020/0298506), have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on Piana applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant's arguments, filed 11/13/2025 in page 6, with respect to claim 3 under 103 rejection, have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that “Quite unlike the present invention, however, the particles of Nuernberg are not moved to different locations in the mold. Rather, what is being controlled is the layer by layer growth from the edges of the mold inward, as is shown in Figures 1a-lf of Nuernberg.”
These arguments are found to be unpersuasive because:
It has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, Nürnberg teaches that the foam component may comprise a hollow body, in this way, the method according to the present disclosure, especially by rotational molding, represents an efficient possibility to produce high-quality hollow bodies from foamed material without using chemical blowing agents (Pa [0047]), and by means of a uniform rotation, for example, a substantially constant thickness of a foam component may be produced (Pa [0077]), and Nuernberg teaches that the method 100 comprises as a first step providing a particulate starting material (e.g., powder, pellets, microgranules, or similar) in a mold (Pa [0070]), that is, the provided particulate starting material in the mold does not fill the mold up in the first step in order to produce a hollow body having a substantially constant thickness by rotational molding. Thus, one would have considered that rotation molding allows the particulate starting material to move around in the interior volume during molding. Therefore, even though Nürnberg is not in the field of the inventor’s endeavor, Nürnberg is reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned (in order to produce a high-quality expanded 3D object), thus Nürnberg is an analogous art.
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 1, 2 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liau et al. (US 20190344691) in view of Field (US 3,607,500).
With respect to claims 1 and 2, Liau teaches a method of molding (“pre-heated stack compression molding”, Pa [0043] and Fig. 17), comprising:
depositing into a mold having an interior volume, a plurality of expandible elements comprised of compressed vertically lapped nonwoven material having binder polymer holding fibers of the vertically lapped nonwoven material in a compressed state (“pellets 1732 of pre-compressed fibers are inserted into a mold 1714”, Pa [0043]; “The fibrous material may be a polyester nonwoven fabric vertically-lapped (v-lap)… The fibers may be a blend of binder fibers… The binder fibers may be low-melt polymers”, Pa [0005]);
heating the plurality of expandible elements so as to melt the binder polymer and allowing the fibers of the vertically lapped nonwoven material to expand to an expanded state (“heated to allow the pellets to expand, fill the mold, and bond to adjacent pellets to form fibrous bun 1000”, Pa [0043]); and
retrieving the molded element from the interior volume of the mold (“releasing the formed fibrous foam architecture.”, Pa [0006]), wherein an amount of the plurality of expandible elements deposited into the mold in the depositing step is sufficient to fill the interior volume of the mold when the molded element is formed during the cooling step (“heating fibrous material in a mold to define the shape of the resulting fibrous bun 1000 …the pellets expand, fill the mold, and bond to adjacent pellets to form fibrous bun 1000”, Pa [0043]).
Liau does not explicitly mention moving the plurality of expandible elements to different locations in the interior volume of the mold during heating, but Liau teaches that the pellets of pre-compressed fibers are inserted in a porous mold (Pa [0043] and Fig. 17), and further teaches that the fibrous layers can be heated by convective hot air, forced hot air and steam heating (Pa [0040] and claim 28). Since during heating by convective hot air, forced hot air and steam heating through the porous mold, the pellets 1732 of pre-compressed fibers expand and fill the mold, the pellets move to the space where the pellets did not exist before heating.
Liau does not explicitly teach that each of the plurality of expandible elements is either smaller than at least one fiftieth of the interior volume of the mold or have a maximum dimension ranging from 1/8 to 2 inches, and cooling the plurality of expandible elements after heating and moving such that the binder polymer solidifies and holds the fibers in the expanded state, and holds adjacent expandible elements of the plurality of expandible elements together so as to form a molded element.
In the same field of endeavor, molding expanded, nonwoven fibrous articles, Field teaches that a process for producing a lightweight, three-dimensional, shaped nonwoven article of thermoplastic fibers comprising the steps of: c. placing the expansible fibrous assembly in a shaped mold; d. heating the assembly to T3 thus expanding it to the inside shape of the mold so as to form an expanded, shaped, fibrous article; and e. removing said article from the mold, preferably preceded by cooling below Tm (co 1 li 50-65), and in Example l, Field further teaches that a section of the compressed wafer-thin web is cut into chips approximately 0.25 to 0.50 in. (0.635 to 1.27 cm.) wide, the chips are placed in the bottom of a 400 ml beaker, and the beaker containing them is heated to a temperature of about 130 C, upon heating, the fibrous material expands to fill the beaker and surprisingly, and upon removal of the fibrous web from the beaker, the inside contour of the beaker is retained in the web (co 3 li 43-51).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Liau with the teachings of Field and use the pellets having the size range taught by Field for the purpose of expanding and filling the mold upon heating, since it has been held that [[T]]he use of a known technique to improve similar devices (methods or products) in the same way is likely to be obvious. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, C.). Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Liau with the teachings of Field and perform cooling below Tm of the binder polymer before removing the article from the mold in order to solidify the binder polymer and hold the fibers in the expanded state.
With respect to claim 4, Liau as applied to claim 1 above teaches that the heating and moving are performed simultaneously by supplying the plurality of expandible elements into the interior of the mold using a stream of heated air (Pa [0040] and claim 28), but does not explicitly that the depositing, heating, and moving are performed simultaneously. However, one would have found it obvious to simultaneously perform depositing step with heating and moving for the purpose of pre-heated stack compression molding, since it has been held that no invention is involved in the broad concept of performing simultaneously operations which have previously been performed in sequence. In re Tatincloux, 108 USPQ 125.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liau et al. (US 20190344691) in view of Field (US 3,607,500) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Nürnberg et al. (US 2021/0246281-of record).
With respect to claim 3, Liau as applied to claim 1 above teaches that moving is accomplished by heating the pellets by convective hot air, forced hot air and steam heating in the porous mold, but is silent to rotating, shaking, or otherwise moving the mold so as to move the plurality of expandible elements around in the interior volume during molding.
Nürnberg relates to a method for producing a foam component, and teaches that the foam component may comprise a hollow body, in this way, the method according to the present disclosure, especially by rotational molding, represents an efficient possibility to produce high-quality hollow bodies from foamed material without using chemical blowing agents (Pa [0047]), and by means of a uniform rotation, for example, a substantially constant thickness of a foam component may be produced (Pa [0077]), and Nuernberg teaches that the method 100 comprises as a first step providing a particulate starting material (e.g., powder, pellets, microgranules, or similar) in a mold (Pa [0070]), that is, the provided particulate starting material in the mold does not fill the mold up in the first step in order to produce a hollow body having a substantially constant thickness by rotational molding. Thus, one would have considered that rotation molding allows the particulate starting material to move around in the interior volume during molding.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Liau with the teachings of Nürnberg and perform rotational molding in order to produce a high-quality expanded 3D object.
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 YUNJU KIM whose telephone number is (571)270-1146. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00-4:00 EST M-Th; Flexing Fri.
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 on 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.
/YUNJU KIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1742
Prosecution Insights