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 of Group l, a method of compression molding a fiber-based packaging capsule, claims 1-12, in the reply filed on 03/04/2026 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Claims 13-15 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS)s submitted on 03/27/2024, 12/13/2024 and 03/06/2026 have been considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 2-12 are objected to because of the following informalities: Applicant has been advised to replace “Method” in line 1 of each claim to – The method --. 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.
Claims 2-7 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.
Claim 2 recites the limitation “preferably” in line 3. The phrase "preferably" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention.
The remaining dependent claims 3-5 are also rejected under 112 (b) because they depend from, and thus include all the limitations of rejected claim 2.
Claim 6 recites the limitation “said re-shapable partial members” in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
The remaining dependent claim 7 is also rejected under 112 (b) because it depends from, and thus includes all the limitations of rejected claim 6.
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 1 and 8-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Larsson et al. (US 2019/0118426 A1).
With respect to claim 1, Larsson teaches a method of compression molding a fiber-based packaging capsule (“a method of manufacturing a cellulose product having a flat or non-flat product shape by a pressure moulding apparatus comprising a forming mould”, Pa [0016]), comprising the steps of:
forming a raw capsule of a loosely bonded fibrous mat (“a tube shaped cellulose blank 1 a… The blank can preferably be supplied to the compressing device in rolls, not shown in the figure, in flat shape wherein the blank is formed into a tube shape”, Pa [0098]), which raw capsule has a moisture content (“a cellulose blank containing less than 45 weight percent water”, Pa [0021]) and an opening (Figs. 4a-d),
positioning the raw capsule of the loosely bonded fibrous mat on the inside of a substantially rigid mold having inner surfaces defining the compression-moulded outer surfaces of the fiber-based packaging capsule (“the forming mould 3 comprises at least two openable and closable negative forming surfaces or parts 2 a, 2 b, surrounding a tube shaped cellulose blank 1 a”, Pa [0098] and Figs. 4a-d),
compression molding the loosely bonded fibrous mat by inserting a pressure-reformable pressing member through said opening, the pressing member being formed of a plurality of unassembled parts including a first substantially pressure-applying part (“a pressure media nozzle 8”) and a second substantially pressure-distributing part (“the pressure media”) (Pa [0100]), at least said second part being at least partially reformable (“FIG. 4c shows the forming and febrile aggregation phase of the method of present invention wherein said inner volume of the blank has been filled with pressure media 9 from the pressure media nozzle 8 and pressurized to the pressure P1 ”, Pa [0101]),
pressurizing said pressing member at a temperature (“heating the cellulose blank to a forming temperature in the range of 100° C. to 200° C.;”), and at a pressure (“the forming pressure being in the range of 1 MPa to 100 MPa.”, Pa [0021]), wherein press forming takes place by reshaping the re-shapable pressing member and pressing the inside of the capsule against the inner surfaces of the rigid mold so that a solid cohesive fiber-based packaging capsule is obtained (“FIG. 4c shows the forming and febrile aggregation phase of the method of present invention wherein said inner volume of the blank has been filled with pressure media 9 from the pressure media nozzle 8 and pressurized to the pressure P1 ”, Pa [0101]).
Larsson teaches the water content of the cellulose blank being less than 45 weight percent water (Pa [0021]), and the forming temperature being in the range of 100° C. to 200° C., and the forming pressure being in the range of 1 MPa to 100 MPa (Pa [0021]). Even though Larsson does not explicitly teach the claimed ranges of water content, temperature, and pressure, one would consider the invention to be obvious because the ranges taught by Larsson overlap the instantly claimed ranges and therefore are considered to establish a prima facie case of obviousness (See MPEP 2144.05 (I)).
With respect to claim 8, Larsson as applied to claim 1 above further teaches that said opening has a maximum width dimension which is smaller than the maximum width dimension of the packaging capsule (Fig. 4C).
With respect to claim 9, Larsson as applied to claim 8 above further teaches that said opening has a maximum width dimension less than half of the maximum width dimension of the packaging capsule (Fig. 4C).
With respect to claim 10, Larsson as applied to claim 1 above further teaches that said method is formed of a loosely coherent fibrous mat comprising predominantly natural fibers (“the cellulose blank may contain wood pulp.”, Pa [0035]).
With respect to claim 11, Larsson as applied to claim 10 above further teaches that said raw capsule is formed from a fibrous mat comprising predominantly natural fibres from trees (“the cellulose blank may contain wood pulp.”, Pa [0035]).
With respect to claim 12, Larsson as applied to claim 11 above further teaches that said raw capsule is formed of a loosely coherent fibrous mat containing a binder (“a cellulose blank containing less than 45 weight percent water”, Pa [0021]; “the blank might contain minor substances (0-10%) of agents for increasing strength”, Pa [0026]).
Claims 2-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Larsson et al. (US 2019/0118426 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Takano et al. (US 2015/0273742 A1).
With respect to claim 2, Larsson as applied to claim 1 above further teaches that an isostatic pressure is obtained in force defined compressing devices, wherein said compressing devices comprises a flexible barrier or a membrane surrounding and separating the blank from the pressure media, e.g. gas, hydraulic oil, water, beverages to be packed, elastomer or dilatant material (Pa [0048]), but does not explicitly teach that said second part comprises a plurality of mutually free reformable partial members and free from said first part.
In the same field of endeavor, a method for molding fiber-reinforced plastic, Takano teaches that a core is used in which a granular material comprising a large number of particles configured to have a high fluidity is contained in a flexible bag, and by increasing the internal pressure of the core, slippage is caused between particles constituting the granular material inside the core to deform the core, and even in a case where a fabric wrapping the core is widely spaced from the core, the spacing can be narrowed by deforming the core (Pa [0027], [0028]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Larsson with the teachings of Takano to substitute the core in which a granular material comprising a large number of particles in a flexible bag for the pressure media in order to provide the internal pressure and allow the space narrow by deforming the core.
With respect to claim 3, Takano as applied in the combination regarding claim 2 above further teaches that said re-shapable partial members are in the size range of 0.1-20 mm (“a granular material in which particles having particle diameters of 0.1 to 20 mm”, Pa [0040]). Even though Takano does not explicitly teach the claimed size range, one would consider the invention to be obvious because the range taught by Takano overlaps the instantly claimed range and therefore are considered to establish a prima facie case of obviousness (See MPEP 2144.05 (I)).
With respect to claim 4, Takano as applied in the combination regarding claim 2 above further teaches that said re-shapable partial members are made of a synthetic or natural polymer and/or of rubber (“hard thermal resistant resins”, Pa [0040]).
With respect to claim 5, Takano as applied in the combination regarding claim 2 above further teaches that said re-shapable partial members are arranged with non-sticking surfaces (“The flowable granular material”, Pa [0040]).
With respect to claims 6 and 7, Larsson as applied to claim 1 above further teaches that an isostatic pressure is obtained in force defined compressing devices, wherein said compressing devices comprises a flexible barrier or a membrane surrounding and separating the blank from the pressure media, e.g. gas, hydraulic oil, water, beverages to be packed, elastomer or dilatant material (Pa [0048]), but does not explicitly teach that said re-shapable partial members have a maximum width dimension (D) which is smaller than the minimum width dimension (d) of said opening of said packaging capsule.
In the same field of endeavor, a method for molding fiber-reinforced plastic, Takano teaches that a core is used in which a granular material comprising a large number of particles configured to have a high fluidity is contained in a flexible bag, and by increasing the internal pressure of the core, slippage is caused between particles constituting the granular material inside the core to deform the core, and even in a case where a fabric wrapping the core is widely spaced from the core, the spacing can be narrowed by deforming the core (Pa [0027], [0028]). Takano further teaches that as shown in FIG. 3B, when the discharging hole is opened at the concave portion 6, air flows in between the particles constituting the granular material 4 a in the core 4 through the hole to disrupt the binding state between the particles constituting the granular material 4 a, subsequently, the granular material 4 a having a disrupted binding state can be discharged to the outside through the discharging hole formed at the concave portion 6, then, manufacture of a molded article 10 having a hollow portion 10 b can be completed, as shown in FIG. 3C (Pa [0085]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Larsson with the teachings of Takano to substitute the core in which a granular material comprising a large number of particles in a flexible bag, the particles having a size smaller than the width of the opening, for the pressure media in order to provide the internal pressure, allow the space narrow by deforming the core, and remove the particles through the opening after pressure moulding.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YUNJU KIM whose telephone number is (571)270-1146. The examiner can normally be reached on 8:00-4:00 EST M-Th; Flexing Fri.
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, Christina Johnson can be reached on 571-272-1176. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/YUNJU KIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1742
Prosecution Insights