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 Objections
Claim 35 objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 35 still depends from claim 27 which is cancelled. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 19 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
For claim 19 it’s not clear the claim to have a fiber laying step followed by a foam filling step followed by a water removing step or the foam is formed including the fiber “before feeding” means that the “fibers are fed” by adding the foaming chemical? For the purpose of examination it’s interpreted that fibers are fed as part of the foaming chemical which is formed before feeding into the molds.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 1-5, filed 05/11/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) under U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Minnich , US 20210040284, Okamato (US 20090121375) listed in IDS and in view of JP 2005007818 hereinafter JP’818 and Richters (US 6193916) .
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.
Claim(s) 19-25, 28-34,36 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Minnich , US 20210040284, Okamato (US 20090121375) listed in IDS and in view of JP 2005007818 hereinafter JP’818 and Richters (US 6193916).
Regarding Claim 19, Minnich discloses method for forming a molded fiber product, in which method a layer is formed of fibers by a pair of molds , and in the method, fibers are fed between the molds (Figure 1A, [0100], [0120], molds-38), before the …..and …., wherein the foam including fibers , air is formed before feeding ([0114], [0120]) and the foam include the air bubbles carrying the fibers.
Minnich didn’t specifically disclose that foam include foaming chemical and water. In the same field of endeavor pertaining to the art, Okamato discloses use of foaming chemical and water in the foam ([0003], [0004], [0011]) and the foam including air bubbles the fibers ([0027], [0070]).
It would be obvious for one ordinary skilled in the art, prior to the time of applicant’s invention to combine Minnich with the teaching of Okamato’s foaming chemical/water for the purpose of forming a multi layer molded product which decides the appearance and flexibilty of the molded product ([0004], [0089], Okamato).
Minnich didn’t specifically disclose that the fibers are fed between the molds before the pair of molds is closed foam and the pair is closed and open. In the related field of endeavor pertaining to the art, JP’818 discloses that foam is fed while the pair is one or more of open (Figure 3, showing the material M being suppled while the molds sealing-71 are in open state, and Figure 6 in closed state, [0031]).
It would be obvious for one ordinary skilled in the art, prior to the time of applicant’s invention to combine Minnich with the teaching of JP’818 to feed the material before the closing of the mold for the purpose of uniform spreading of the material under gravity which would help in homogenous expansion of the foamed material when clamped.
Further JP’818 discloses material M is fed via one of the molds having a passage/channel arranged to open between the molds while the pair is sealed from its sides (Figure 3, passage-62, [0030], [0032], seal mechanism-70). JP’818 didn’t disclose several lateral channels arranged to open between the molds while the pair is sealed from its sides. The court held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced.
JP’818 discloses the claimed invention except for the duplication. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to duplicate the channels for the material, since it have been held that a mere duplication of working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. One would have been motivated to duplicate the channels for the purpose of faster inflow of the material. However, In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960). SEE MPEP 2144.04VI.
Further re: the amended limitation Richters discloses pair of mold comprising an upper and lower mold with lower mold having a porous surface (Figure 6, molds-18/20 , with lower mold-20 having porous zones-22, Col 11 lines 15-20).
It would have been obvious to modify above combination of Minnich/Okamato teaching with that of Richter’s porous mold for the purpose of drawing out the excess materials as during the molding of the product formed to minimize defects and internal voids.
Richters discloses a suction line-23 (Figure 6, Col 11 , line-21) but didn’t specifically disclose that closing the pair of molds to remove the water and air from the foam through the porous lower mold , collecting and returning the removed water for foam generation. However, combining with Minnich and Okamato where the foam is comprised with air and water as discussed , modified by Richter’s porous zone-22 and suction line-23 (Figure 6) the limitation that after closing the pair of molds to remove the water and air from the foam through the porous lower mold is met. Richter didn’t specifically disclose to collect the excess removed water and returning to the foam generation process. However it is obvious to one ordinary skilled in the art to collect the excess water and return it for foam generation as it would not require any special experimentation and yield reasonable expectation of success. As also a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known option within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense." KSR int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727,82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Regarding Claim 20, JP’818 discloses wherein the foam is fed while the pair is one or more of open (Figure 3, showing the material M being suppled while the molds sealing-71 are in open state).
Regarding Claim 21, Okamato discloses after closing the pair is opened and more foam is fed for a further layer, and the pair is closed (Figure 2f, extra foam layer-122, [0077]).
Regarding Claim 22, Okamato discloses, wherein the foam is fed to either side of the layer (Figure 2c, layer-121).
Regarding Claim 23, Okamato discloses the foam is exchanged before forming the further layer ([0063], Figure 1, machines 30 provide the first layer and machine 130 provide the second layer).
Regarding Claim 24, Okamoto discloses wherein the fiber product is formed without extra heating ([0067. Heaters are mounted on the cyylinder-31,131, no additional heating was required ).
Regarding Claim 25, Okamato discloses the mold temperature is 30-deg C therefore, the material injected would maintain the same temperature ([0087]).
Regarding Claim 28, Okamato discloses the foam is supplemented with foaming chemical used for foam generation ([0011]).
Regarding Claim 29, Okamato discloses after the further layer is formed on either side of the fiber product. (Figure 2 e-f, extra foam layer-122 formed on the either side of the layer-121, [0077]).
Regarding Claim 30 , Okamato discloses further layers are formed (Figure 2 e-f, extra foam layer-122 formed on the either side of the layer-121, [0077]).
Regarding Claim 31 , Minnich discloses product is combined of multi- layered partial products from two pairs of molds (Figure 1A).
Regarding Claim 32 , Okamato discloses “mold 10 is composed of a stationary mold 3, which is attached to a stationary platen 1, and a movable mold 4, which is attached to a movable platen 2. The stationary mold 3 and the movable mold 4 have a semi-positive structure, and are fitted together at a fitting part” (Figure 1, [0063]).
Regarding Claim 33, Okamato discloses that the upper mold is moved while the lower mold is arranged stationary (Figure 1, stationary mold-3, movable mold-4, [0063]).
Regarding Claim 34. In the same field of endeavor pertaining to the art, Okamato discloses the mold temperature is 30-deg C therefore, the material injected would maintain the same temperature ([0087]).
Regarding Claim 36 JP’818 discloses wherein the pair is sealed from its sides by an outer sleeve (Figure 3, [0032]).
Claim(s) 26, 27, 35 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Minnich , US 20210040284, Okamato (US 20090121375) listed in IDS and in view of JP 2005007818 hereinafter JP’818.
Regarding Claim 26, Minnich did disclose method for forming a molded fiber product, in which method a layer is formed of fibers by a pair of molds , and in the method, fibers are fed between the molds (Figure 1A, [0100], [0120], molds-38), didn’t disclose wherein before and after feeding the foam is circulated. In the relate field of endeavor pertaining to the art , de Graff discloses before and after feeding the foam is circulated (([0033], [0036]).
It would be obvious for one ordinary skilled in the art, prior to the time of applicant’s invention to combine Minnich with the teaching of de Graff’s circulation for the purpose of moisture to escape through the vent channels.
Regarding Claim 27 Minnich did disclose method for forming a molded fiber product, in which method a layer is formed of fibers by a pair of molds , and in the method, fibers are fed between the molds (Figure 1A, [0100], [0120], molds-38), didn’t disclose comprising closing the pair of molds to remove the water and the air from the foam. In the relate field of endeavor pertaining to the art , de Graff discloses closing the pair of molds to remove the water and the air from the foam ([0036]).
It would be obvious for one ordinary skilled in the art, prior to the time of applicant’s invention to combine Minnich with the teaching of de Graff’s removal of water and air from the vents for the purpose of improving the strength of the molded product
Regarding Claim 35, Minnich did disclose method for forming a molded fiber product, in which method a layer is formed of fibers by a pair of molds , and in the method, fibers are fed between the molds (Figure 1A, [0100], [0120], molds-38), didn’t disclose wherein the water and air removal is aided by vacuum. In the related field of endeavor pertaining to the art, de Graaff discloses wherein the water and air removal is aided by vacuum ([0026]).
It would be obvious for one ordinary skilled in the art, prior to the time of applicant’s invention to combine Minnich with the teaching of de Graff’s removal of water and air by vacuum for the purpose of improving the strength of the molded product.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DEBJANI ROY whose telephone number is (571)272-8019. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30-5:30 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, Alison Hindenlang can be reached on 571-270-7001. 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.
/DEBJANI ROY/Examiner, Art Unit 1741
/ALISON L HINDENLANG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1741
Prosecution Insights