Detailed Office Action
The communication dated 1/30/2026 has been entered and fully considered.
Claims 43-68 are pending with claims 66-68 withdrawn from consideration
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 1 in the reply filed on 1/30/2026 is acknowledged.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in Great Britian on7/6/2021. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the GB2109753.0 application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 59 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
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.
Claims 43-65 are 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.
The term “cold” in claim 43 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “cold” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The term “cold” could be defined as a specific temperature or a specific process. For the purpose of examination the Examiner interprets cold as ”the application of pressure to the intermediate pulp with no additional heat energy provided to the process”.
The claims dependent therefrom are similarly rejected.
In claim 63 the applicant claims a pressure of less than 300 kg/m2 and then claims additional singular values. Does the applicant mean these to be some type of range or singular points?
In claim 63, it is not clear if this is a gauge or atmospheric pressure.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 43-53, 61, 62, and 65 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by WO2023209496 TORNBLOM et al., hereinafter TORNBLOM.
As for claim 43, TORNBLOM discloses taking an air-laid sheet [pg. 19 line 30] and wetting the sheet (s1) to form an intermediate pulp and then cold pressing (s3) to form a molded product [Figure 1; pg. 2 lines 13-24].
As for claim 44, the pulp sheet comprises lignocellulosic fibers pg. 23 lines 20-30] at a 100% level [pg. 24 lines 5-6]
As for claim 45 and 48, TORNBLOM discloses a spraying step [claim 3, Figure 4].
As for claim 46, TORNBLOM discloses additionally pressing the molded product in a hot-pressing stage (s4) [Figure 1; pg. 2 lines 13-24].
As for claim 47, TORNBLOM discloses water resistance by addition hydrophobization agents [pg. 13 lines 20-25].
As for claim 49 and 50, TORNBLOM discloses hot-pressing at above 100 degrees C which suggests cold pressing is below 100 degrees C [pg. 22 lines 14 and 15]. TORNBLOM additionally discloses room-temperature [pg. 5 lines 25-26]. TORNBLOM does not perform any heating prior to the hot pressing.
As for claim 51, TORNBLOM discloses that cold-pressing takes place in a mold [pg. 7 lines 7-10].
As for claim 52, TORNBLOM discloses applying heat during hot pressing of the cold-pressed product [Figure 1; pg. 2 lines 13-24].
As for claim 53, TORNBLOM discloses water [pg. 8 lines 17-25].
As for claim 61, TORNBLOM discloses functional additives [pg. 13 lines 20-25].
As for claim 62, the additives of TORNBLOM will absorb into the dry laid pulp and penetrate it [pg. 11 lines 23-30].
As for claim 65, TORBLOM discloses a food packaging product [pg. 2 lines 27-29]
Claims 43-53, 61, 62, 64, and 65 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by FR2526459A1, SORBIER, hereinafter SORBIER.
As for claim 43, SORBIER discloses taking an air-laid sheet [0005 sub. Par. 1, dry cellulose pulp laid down, fluff sub. Par. 7] and wetting the sheet [0005 sub. Par. 1 binder and moisture] to form an intermediate pulp and then cold pressing to form a molded product [room temperature cold process 0005 sub. Par. 4].
As for claim 44, the pulp sheet comprises lignocellulosic fibers [0005 sub. Par. 4]
As for claim 45 and 48, SORBIER discloses a spraying step (21) [0005 sub. Par. 9].
As for claim 46, SORBIER discloses multiple presses (22) [Figure 5]
As for claim 47, SORBIER discloses a paraffin emulsion coating which will increase water resistance [0006].
As for claim 49 and 50, SORBIER discloses room-temperature for cold pressing and the binder [0005 sub. Par 3 and 7]
As for claim 51, SORBIER discloses that cold-pressing takes place in a mold (22) [0005 sub. Par. 9].
As for claim 52, SORBIER discloses that the drum will heat the fluff pulp [0005 sub. Par. 5]
As for claim 53, SORBIER discloses water [0005 sub. Par. 9].
As for claim 61, SORBIER discloses functional additives [0005 sub. Par. 9].
As for claim 62, the additives of SORBIER will absorb (impregnate) into the sheet [0005 sub. Par. 1]
As for claim 64, SORBIER discloses 1-3 seconds which falls within the claimed range [0005, sub. Par. 4].
As for claim 65, SORBIER discloses a food packaging product [0005, sub. Par. 1]
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 63 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 FR2526459A1, SORBIER, hereinafter SORBIER.
As for claim 63, SORBIER discloses on the order of 1 bar (10,200 kg/m2) or a range of 1,000 kg/m2 to 100,000 kg/m2 which overlaps the instant claimed range [0005 sub. Par. 5] .However, as the press backs off to ‘0’ pressure the pressure claimed will be passed through therefore anticipatory. In the alternative pressure is a result effective variable [0005 sub. Par. 8] that affects thickness. At the time of the invention it would be obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art to optimize the pressure to obtain a desired thickness through routine experimentation.
Claims 54-58 and 60 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over FR2526459A1, SORBIER, hereinafter SORBIER, in view of U.S. 2006/0119018 WATANABE et al., hereinafter WATANABE.
As for claim 54, 58, and 60, SOBRIER discloses a binder including a copolymer, (PVA and ethylene), cereal flour (a biopolymer), and water (a solvent)[0005]. SOBRIER fails to disclose an alkoxide or a catalyst.
WATANABE discloses a cold curing polymer [0034] comprising an alkoxide [0037] and a catalyst [0040]. At the time of the invention it would be obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art to substitute the known cold curing polymer of WATANABE for the polymer of SOBRIER. The person of ordinary skill in the art would expect success as WATANABE works on pulp [0020] and in cold conditions and SOBBRIER uses cold pressing on pulp and can be used with water as a solvent [0038].
As for claim 55-57, SOBRIER discloses cereal flour (e.g. wheat, oat, barley, or rye) which comprises starch.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANTHONY J CALANDRA whose telephone number is (571)270-5124. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:45 AM -4:15 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.
ANTHONY J. CALANDRA
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1748
/Anthony Calandra/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1748
Prosecution Insights