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 & Response to Amendment
The Examiner acknowledges the amendments made to the claims filed on 10/22/25. Claims 16-18 have been canceled. Claims 1-15 and 19-22 have been amended. In view of the amendments made, the inventions outlined in the restriction now meet the requirements of unity of invention. As such, the restriction requirement previously filed on 8/27/25 has been withdrawn.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-10, 12-15, and 19-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kazuhiro JP_2013035969_A (see machine English translation) in view of WO_2021053186_A1 (see English equivalent: Berglund USPA_20240026608_A1).
1. Regarding Claims 1 and 7, Kazuhiro discloses a printed circuit board substrate (corresponds to claimed load bearing 3D article of instant Claims 1, 7, and 10; paragraphs 0122, 0132), which implicitly is known to have a top and bottom surface. Said printed circuit board is made from creating a prepreg that is formed from fibers of kraft paper (which is known to be made from wood; and wood is made of cellulose) along with a lignin resin (corresponds to claimed binding agent) that can have a lignin resin amount as low as 28.5% (paragraphs 0098, 0107, and 0127), thereby teaching the claimed range. Kazuhiro further discloses the optional use of an acidic curing catalyst (paragraph 0070; corresponds to claimed acidic curing catalyst). Given that it is optional, it could therefore be in a concentration of 0%, as is being claimed.
2. However, Kazuhiro does not disclose the length of its fibers for its kraft paper.
3. Berglund discloses kraft paper (Title) having a mean average fiber length ranging from 2.2 mm to 2.7 mm that leads to producing kraft paper that is strong enough to withstand handling, transport and pressure, without tearing and is also safely compostable and biodegradable (paragraph 0018) and is also load bearing (paragraph 0010). Given that it’s mean average ranges from 2.2 mm to 2.7 mm, it would therefore be expected for it to inherently fulfill the claimed limitation of at least 60% of its fibers not exceeding 10 mm.
4. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the kraft paper, of Kazuhiro, by using a cellulosic mean average fiber length of 2.2 mm to 2.7 mm, as disclosed by Berglund. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated in doing so in order to obtain kraft paper that is strong enough to withstand handling, transport and pressure, without tearing and is also safely compostable and biodegradable.
5. Regarding Claims 10 and 13, Kazuhiro in view of Berglund suggests a method of producing said substrate by way of impregnating said kraft paper (corresponds to instant Claim 13) with lignin resin composition (corresponds to claimed binding agent) followed by drying (corresponds to claimed pre-curing) (Kazuhiro: paragraphs 0121-0123) at a temperature ranging from 80 to 180°C (Kazuhiro: paragraph 0126) to obtain the prepreg (Kazuhiro: paragraphs 0125, 0126). Followed by a laminating of one or more said prepregs to form a composite substrate load-bearing 3D structure (Kazuhiro: paragraphs 0128, 0129, 0130). Then said composite substrate 3D structure is pressed at a temperature of at least 100 to 280°C at a minimum pressure preferably of 1 Mpa (Kazuhiro: 10.1972 kg/cm2) (paragraph 0131). Also, the Examples of Kazuhiro disclose times that overlap with Applicants’ claimed ranges. Moreover, the Examiner respectfully submits that it would be expected for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed, to know the time period required to form the shape needed (Kazuhiro: paragraph 0132). The remainder limitations of instant Claim 10 have been disclosed above under the rejection of instant Claim 1.
6. Regarding Claims 3 and 12, Kazuhiro in view of Berglund suggests using recycled cellulosic fibers (Kazuhiro: paragraph 0002).
7. Regarding Claims 4, 6, 14, and 22, Kazuhiro in view of Berglund suggests having developable surfaces given that a PCB has developable surfaces and cavities.
8. Regarding Claims 5 and 19, Kazuhiro in view of Berglund suggests using kraft paper as mentioned above. Kraft paper is known to inherently have substantially parallel arranged fibers.
9. Regarding Claim 8, although Kazuhiro in view of Berglund does not suggest the claimed tensile strength, given that it substantially teaches the claimed materials and method, it would be expected for it to inherently have the same tensile strength.
10. Regarding Claim 9, although Kazuhiro in view of Berglund does not suggest the claimed thickness, this would ultimately depend on end-user specifications of said PCB. If the PCB is required to have a larger thickness, then an increase in the laminations of said prepregs can simply be made.
11. Regarding Claim 15, Kazuhiro in view of Berglund suggests the claimed Kraft paper and so it would be expected for it to inherently have the same biobased carbon concentration.
12. Regarding Claim 20, Kazuhiro in view of Berglund suggests 0 to 90 degrees lamination stacking (Kazuhiro: paragraph 0147).
13. Regarding Claim 21, Kazuhiro in view of Berglund suggests cutting (Kazuhiro: paragraph 0082).
Claim(s) 2 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kazuhiro JP_2013035969_A (see machine English translation) in view of WO_2021053186_A1 (see English equivalent: Berglund USPA_20240026608_A1), as applied to Claims 1, 3-10, 12-15, and 19-22, and further in view of Ogasawara JP_2018150465_A1 (see machine English translation).
14. Regarding Claims 2 and 11, Kazuhiro in view of Berglund does not suggest the use of polyfurfuryl alcohol reisn.
15. Ogasawara discloses using furan resin composition for improving adhesiveness for use as a fiber-reinforced prepreg useable in construction and civil engineering (Abstract, paragraph 0027), similar to Kazuhiro (paragraph 0132). Ogasawara further discloses that said furan resin can be made from polyfurfural alcohol (paragraph 0002) which can help with bending strength and problems in mechanical properties (paragraph 0004).
16. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the resin (corresponds to claimed binding agent), of Kazuhiro in view of Berglund, by trying the use of the furan resin, of Ogasawara. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated in doing so in order to obtain help with bending strength and mechanical properties and adhesiveness.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TAHSEEN KHAN whose telephone number is (571)270-1140. The examiner can normally be reached Mondays-Saturdays 08:00AM-10:00PM.
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, Frank Vineis can be reached at 5712701547. 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.
/TAHSEEN KHAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1781 November 21, 2025