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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of group I, claims 1-3, 5 and 10-18 in the reply filed on January 21, 2026 is acknowledged.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by any of Cho et al, (hereinafter Cho), KR 20050090529 A1 (Machine Translation), Yongjian, CN-213013700 U, (Machine Translation), Appleford et al., (hereinafter Appleford), WO 2021/016664 A1, Sato et al., (hereinafter Sato), US Patent Application Publication No. 2003/0111201 A1, Kuo et al., (hereinafter Kuo), US Patent Application Publication No. 2017/0197334 A1 (only for claims 1 and 2), Hardacre et al., (hereinafter Hardacre), US Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0169800 A1, Nilsson et al., (hereinafter Nilsson), US Patent Application Publication No. 2009/0142523 A1, Modersohn, United State Patent No. 3,449,207 and Wells, United State Patent No. 2,995,187, just to mention a few.
Regarding to claims 1-3 and 17-18, all of the above references, Wells, Modersohn, Nilsson, Hardacre, Kuo, Sato, Appleford, Cho, and Yongjian, disclose device and process (reading on claims 1 and 17) for simultaneously producing a plurality, i.e., at least two at the time, of products, containers, using papermaking molds and fibrous pulps (reading on claim 2), usually cellulosic pulps, by submerging and/or adding a fibrous suspension onto receiving molds having a porous mesh, i.e., the lattice of claim 18, and having the shape of the product that would be made, until the desired thickness is achieved, then pressuring the wet product onto a mold having the opposite shape of the first mold, i.e., female/male depending of the shape of the first mold, where the fibrous suspension trapped onto the porous mesh is dewatered, usually by applying pressure and/or vacuum, and then dried in a subsequent stage. The references teach also that the system can include a rotary distributor (reading on claim 3); see where the teachings mentioned above of the above references are shown/disclosed, below:
Yongjian; ¶-[0012] on pages 6-7 for claims 1-2, 17-18 and ¶-[0008] for claim 3.
Cho; ¶-[n0002], [n0013] which teaches the rotary distributor, i.e., the transmission motor, and [n0021] also teaching the motor, etc.
Appleford; figures 1, 8-12 and page 15, line 20 through page 17, line 2.
Sato; figures 12, figures 17(a)-17(h) and 27 ¶-[0079]-[0080], [0088], [0091] and [0112], [0180]-[0193].
Kuo; figure 1 and ¶-[0008], [0029]-[0037].
Hardacre; ¶-[0009]-[0018], [0063]-[0075] (teaching the use of rotary distributor).
Nilsson; abstract figures 1-5 and ¶-[0038]-[0040].
Modersohn; figure 1 and column 1, lines 27-47 (note the rotating distributor on figure 1).
Wells; figures 1, column 1, lines 18-32 and column 3, lines 3-25 (note the rotating distributor on figure 1).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over any of Sato et al., US Patent Application Publication No. 2003/0111201 A1 and Hardacre et al., (hereinafter Hardacre), US Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0169800 A1, both cited above.
Both of references, Sato and Hardacre, teach the device for producing a plurality of container, products, comprising a fiber-containing pulp; see figures 12 and 27 ¶-[0079]-[0080], [0088], [0091] and [0112] of Sato and ¶-[0009]-[0018], [0063]-[0075] of Hardacre. The references teach also the rotating motor distributor and balloons, i.e., an expandable, plastic material (pressing blade, flexible impermeable membrane), which is inflated to compress the pulp on a second mold; see ¶-[0040]-[0044] of Hardacre, which teaches that multiple articles can be pressed with a bladder for each article and Sato on figures 17(a)-17(h) shows the use of the balloon, (the expanding and contracting member 360), described on ¶-[0180]-[0193], figures 23, 27 show the rotating mechanism and multiple formation of the product, described on ¶-[0238]-[0242] and [0273]-[0285].
It seems that the references teach all the limitations of the above claim, or at the very least the minor modification(s) to obtain the claimed invention would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claims 10-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sato et al., US Patent Application Publication No. 2003/0111201 A1 and Hardacre et al., (hereinafter Hardacre), US Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0169800 A1, both cited above.
With regard to claims 10-16, both Hardacre and Sato teach the rotary of the molds in stages in which the pulp is provided usually by dipping on a fiber suspension as in Sato, but also by injection by injection as shown on ¶-[0014] of Hardacre, and both teach the heating for dewatering and drying of the mold/products, id, but they are silent with respect to the different details of the device, such as the valve of claim 10, a third carrousel of claims 11-12, the cleaning and drying devices of claims 13-14, the incline axis of claim 15 and the modular design of claim 16. However, those limitations are considered to be within the mechanical level of one of ordinary skill in the art, since they are well-known in the art, e.g., the use of regulating valves are common and can be considered as part implicit part of any molding device to control flow, pressure, temperature, etc., including other stages is common in the art1, so the cleaning of the molds and the making of a modular design, such that each part can be added or replaced if necessary. Therefore all of the limitations of claims 10-16 are considered to be obvious, absent a showing of unexpected results.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure in the art of “Device and Method for Simultaneously Producing a Plurality of Containers Comprising Fibers.”
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSE A FORTUNA whose telephone number is (571)272-1188. The examiner can normally be reached MONDAY- FRIDAY 11:30 PM- 9:00 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 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.
/JOSE A FORTUNA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1748
JAF
1 See for example figures 1, 8-12 of Appleford which show that n stages can be added if desire; see more specifically figure 11.