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 I, claims 1-10 and 12 in the reply filed on 11/23/2025 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Claims 13-15 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected inventions, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 11/23/2025.
Response to Amendment
Applicant amendment filed 11/23/2025 has been entered and is currently und er consideration. Claims 1-10 and 12-15 remain pending in the application.
Claim Objections
Claims 7-8 objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 7, “n” should read --in--.
In claim 8, “ompared” should read --compared--.
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 1-10 and 12 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 “high pressure and high temperature” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “high pressure and high temperature” 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.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the body". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 5 recites the final fiber product. The claim is rendered in definite because it is not clear if the claim term is referencing the fiber product of claim 1 or referencing a different or same stage of the fiber product of claim 1 or introducing a different fiber product entirely.
Regarding claim 8, the phrase "preferably" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). Regarding claim 9, the phrase "preferably" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). For the purpose of compact prosecution, the limitations following the term preferably are interpreted to be optional.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the ". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of compact prosecution, the claim has been interpreted to mean the material of the blank.
Claim 9 recites “the material consists partly of natural fibers”. The claim is rendered indefinite because “consists” is close ended, while the limitations immediately following are open ended. If a material only consists of natural fibers, then it must wholly consist of natural fibers. Conversely, if a material is only partly made of natural fibers, then there must be another material comprising the remainder part. See MPEP 2111.03.
All claims dependent on the above rejected claims are rejected as well because they include all the limitations of the rejected claims.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-10 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jiang et al. (CN203700877 of record with reference made to examiner provided machine translation) hereinafter Jiang in view of Larsson et al. (US2019/0118426) hereinafter Larsson and Rasanen et al. (US2020/0308768) hereinafter Rasanen.
Regarding claim 1, Jiang teaches:
A press molding method of forming a fiber product (ln 43-47), by means of a press pad device (Fig 7-10: concave portion 4) and a stamp device (Fig 7-10: central male mold portion 1, annular male mold portion 2), wherein a blank is used to produce said fiber product (Fig 7-10; ln 71) and said fiber product comprises a bottom part, side walls and an edge part (Fig 10), wherein said stamp device comprises two stamp members (Fig 7-10: central male mold portion 1, annular male mold portion 2), wherein a first stamp member forms at least said bottom part (Fig 7-10: central male mold portion 1; ln 277-281) and a second stamp member forms said edge part (Fig 7-10: annular male mold portion 2; ln 277-281), wherein said second stamp member stops at a given distance distant from said bottom part having said edge part positioned farthest distant from said bottom part (Fig 7-10; 379-406), and wherein said second stamp member is movable along the outer periphery of said first stamp member (Fig 7-10; 379-406), and by having an upper edge of said fiber product after forming at least said bottom part positioned within a cavity of said press pad device (Fig 7-10; 379-406).
Jiang does not teach forming a fiber product, at high pressure and high temperature, wherein a pre-cut blank is used that prior to pressing has a water content not exceeding 20% the weight of fiber.
In the same field of endeavor regarding fiber products, Larsson teaches forming a fiber product, at high pressure and high temperature (Larsson teaches a range of values for the pressure and temperature that overlaps with the range of high pressures and temperatures disclosed by applicant specification that is considered to fall under the scope of high pressure and high temperature), wherein a blank is used that prior to pressing has a range of values for the water content by weight of fiber that overlaps with the claimed invention for the motivation of improving mechanical properties of the composite ([0012, 0021]).
In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976). See MPEP 2144.05.
Since overlapping ranges are evidence of prima facie obviousness, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have chosen the portion of the forming pressure, temperature, and blank water content as taught by Larsson that overlaps with the claimed ranges.
Jiang in view of Larsson does not teach the blank is a pre-cut blank.
However, Larsson teaches that the blank is in the form of a web for forming individual fiber products ([0026]).
In the same field of endeavor regarding fiber products, Rasanen teaches using a pre-cut blank for forming individual fiber products as an alternative to feeding from a web ([0049]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have tried method of using pre-cut blanks as taught by Rasanen instead of the web blanks as taught by Jiang in view of Larsson and there would be a reasonable expectation of success since Rasanen teaches both methods as suitable for forming individual fiber products.
Regarding claim 2, Jiang in view of Larsson and Rasanen teaches the method of claim 1.
Jiang further teaches wherein said sidewalls extend vertically in relation to a horizontal plane including said bottom part (Fig 7-10).
Regarding claim 3, Jiang in view of Larsson and Rasanen teaches the method of claim 1.
Jiang further teaches wherein said first stamp member at least partly forms at least said bottom part before said second stamp member starts forming said edge part (Fig 7-10; ln 379-406).
Regarding claim 4, Jiang in view of Larsson and Rasanen teaches the method of claim 1.
Jiang further teaches wherein all parts of said upper edge are positioned below an upper surface of the body of said press pad device (Fig 7-10).
Regarding claim 5, Jiang in view of Larsson and Rasanen teaches the method of claim 1.
Jiang in view of Larsson and Rasanen does not teach wherein said second stamp member at a given distance distant from said bottom part at least partly cuts off a non-desired part of the final fiber product.
However, Larsson teaches using the forming molds to cut the blanks during closing of the molds for the motivation of removing residual material ([0100]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the second stamp member as taught by Jiang in view of Larsson and Rasanen to cut the blank during mold closing as taught by Rasanen in order to remove residual material.
Regarding claim 6, Jiang in view of Larsson and Rasanen teaches the method of claim 1.
Jiang further teaches wherein said second stamp member stops pressing at a given distance in relation to a position of said press pad device and/or said first stamp member, such that said edge part is positioned at a given distance (Fig 7-10; ln 379-406).
Regarding claim 7, Jiang in view of Larsson and Rasanen teaches the method of claim 1.
Jiang further teaches wherein the end position of the first stamp member stops pressing at a given distance in relation to a position of said press pad device so that a given thickness is reached for said bottom part (Fig 7-10; ln 379-406).
Regarding claim 8, Jiang in view of Larsson and Rasanen teaches the method of claim 1.
Jiang further teaches wherein forces are applied to the first and second stamp members, such that different pressures are achieved within the edge part when merely pressing with the first stamp members compared to when also pressing with the second stamp members, wherein preferably a higher pressure is achieved when pressing with the second stamp members (Fig 7-10; ln 379-406).
Regarding claim 9, Jiang in view of Larsson and Rasanen teaches the method of claim 1.
Larsson further teaches wherein the material consists partly of natural fibers, preferably natural fibers from wood ([0021, 0026, 0035]; Larsson teaches that the blank can comprise less than 45% water, i.e., including 0% water content, and 0% additives, leaving only wood pulp).
Regarding claim 10, Jiang in view of Larsson and Rasanen teaches the method of claim 1.
Larsson further teaches wherein the molding temperature is 150-250 ° C and the pressure on said bottom part is at least 200 bar (see art rejection of claim 1).
Regarding claim 12, Jiang in view of Larsson and Rasanen teaches the method of claim 1.
Jiang further teaches wherein said edge part and/or side walls is/are given a pattern and/or a profile (Fig 10).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDER A WANG whose telephone number is (571)272-5361. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 8 am-4 pm EST.
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 at 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.
/ALEXANDER A WANG/Examiner, Art Unit 1741
/JACOB T MINSKEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1748
Prosecution Insights