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 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 1-10 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.
Regarding claim 1, the phrase "such that" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). Claims 2-10 are dependent on claim, and hence also rejected.
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) 1-2, 4-8, and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jakwerth (DE29920772U1) and further in view of Naundorf (US 2011/0108641 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Jakwerth discloses method for producing absorbent, fiber-based, granular material comprising pellet-shaped units (pg. 5 paragraph 9), the method comprising the following steps: - providing a fiber-based starting material (claim 1),
- fragmenting the starting material into fiber-based starting-material parts of defined size (pg. 2 paragraph 1 under description),
- loosening and mixing the fiber-based starting-material parts (pg.2 last paragraph),
- pressing the loosened and mixed starting-material parts through a granulating channel in a die in a pressing direction granulating channel forms an open channel through the die (208) and comprises
- a feed region (203) a compaction region (217) and - a loosening region (210) in the die (209) wherein the feed, compaction, and loosening regions are shaped, arranged and connected to one another such that, when being pressed through the granulating channel the loosened and mixed starting-material parts are guided via the feed region to the compaction region are compacted in the compaction region are subsequently loosened in the loosening region (figure 1) and
- are pressed to form a granular material comprising pellet- shaped unit and - crushing the granular material between rotating rollers (211) and by actions of the rotating rollers (see figure 1).
Jakwerth does not explicitly disclose such that the pellet-shaped units undergo loosening for a second time, yielding the absorbent pellet-shaped units. Analogous art, Kahl, discloses loosening dissolve interadhesions, nip bridges and positive bonds between fibers [0025]. However, it would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the pellet-shaped units undergo loosening for a second time to ensure the pellets can easily separate from the desired product. "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 2, Jakwerth discloses wherein at least one of the feed region narrows in the pressing direction
The feed region and the loosening region are connected to one another via the compaction region (see figure 1,the regions are all connected in 215),
The granulating channel narrows to a greatest extent in the compaction region or the loosening region widens in the pressing direction (208 in figure 1).
Regarding claim 4, Jakwerth discloses to crush the granular material, the pellet-shaped units are guided between the rollers by grooves (211) in at least one by grooves in at least one roller surface (figure 1).
Regarding claim 5, Jakwerth discloses combining the loosened and mixed starting materials parts to form agglomerates, and the granular material is obtained by pressing the agglomerates through the granulating channel (pg. 5 paragraph 7).
Regarding claim 6, Jakwerth disclose further comprising the following method step: wetting the fiber-based starting materials with water (pg. 4 paragraph 2)
Regarding claim 7, Jakwerth does not explicitly disclose coarsely fragmenting the starting materials into fiber-based starting material parts of undefined size, finely fragmenting the fiber-based starting-material parts of undefined size into the fiber-based starting-material parts of defined size, wherein the defined size relates to a size threshold value, so that the defined size corresponds to a size threshold value or is less than the size threshold value. However, it is well known for one ordinary skill in the art to use the granulator disclosed by Jakwerth (pg. 3 paragraph 9) to fragment pieces and discloses a pressing ratio of 1:8 (last paragraph on pg. 5). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated coarsely fragmenting the starting materials into fiber-based starting material parts of undefined size, finely fragmenting the fiber-based starting-material parts of undefined size into the fiber-based starting-material parts of defined size, wherein the defined size relates to a size threshold value, so that the defined size corresponds to a size threshold value or is less than the size threshold value since it is within the skillset of one ordinary skill in the art and in order to simplify the processing step (pg. 3 paragraph 14).
Regarding claim 8, Jakwerth discloses drying the granular material and crushing the dried granular material between and by actions of the rotating rollers (pg. 5 paragraph 8).
Regarding claim 10, Jakwerth does not explicitly disclose adding loose, fiber-based material that accumulate during the method to at least one of the fiber-based starting material or to fiber-based starting material parts (pg. 4 paragraph 4). In order to form the structure, one would need to add the fiber based material and would ordinary skill in the art would find it beneficial to use any leftover fibers in the molding step. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to use reuse loose fiber parts in order to save money and resources. "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).
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jakwerth (DE29920772U1) and further in view of Naundorf (US 2011/0108641 A1), as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Odagi (US2010/0071571 A1).
Regarding claim 3, Jakwerth discloses wherein the rollers rotate in a same direction toward the granular material (see figure 1) but does not disclose at different rotational speeds relative to one another, with respect to the granular material. However, analogous art, Odagi, discloses utilizing two different speeds for the benefit of providing a shearing force [0029]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated two different speeds, as taught by Odagi into the method taught by Jakwerth in order to enact a shearing force.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jakwerth (DE29920772) in view of CN106288669A, herein referred to as ‘669.
Regarding claim 9, Jakwerth does not explicitly disclose separating the granular material from loose, fiber-based material. However, analogous art ‘669 discloses loosing dried material (pg. 3 paragraph 11) based on the design needs of the final products. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated a step of separating the granular material from loose, fiber-based material as taught by ‘669 into the method taught by Jakwerth based on design needs.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/18/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues Jakwerth is directed to plant fiber and intended for injection molding materials. However, applicant’s claim are broad and plant fiber reads on fiber. Applicant further argues that Jakwerth device is further compressed however as written, the claim language does not preclude the starting material being compressed under a specific pressure.
Applicant argues Jakwerth is producing a different product. However, the same method can make various different projects based on desired products.
As for the loosening of the pellet shape, analogous art, Naundorf, discloses it would be obvious to loosen comminution to dissolve interadhesion, nip bridges, and positive bonds between fibers [0025]. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
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 FARAH N TAUFIQ whose telephone number is (571)272-6765. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday: 8:00 am-4:30 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, Susan Leong can be reached at (571)270-1487. 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.
/FARAH TAUFIQ/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1754
Prosecution Insights