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 .
Application Status
This action is responsive to the claims filed 26 December 2025.
Claims 1-7, 9, 11-13, 16-18, 20, and 22 are currently pending and being examined.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
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.
Claim 22 is 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 “ring-like” in claim 22 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “ring-like” 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. It is unclear how far ring-like goes, does it include a band made of any shape (triangle, square, circle, D-shaped, etc.) that have a hole inside, an open-ended ring like a circlip, or a spiral ring like a key ring.
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.
Claim(s) 1-7, 9, 11-13, 16-18, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chotard (US 2005/0127566) in view of Hogblom (SE 1950299 A1), reference made to the foreign reference provided by the Applicant on 14 June 2024.
Claims 1 and 11: Chotard teaches a method and a pressing module (fig.2) for forming products from a blank structure (6-fig.2), wherein the pressing module (at least 4,5,7-fig.2) comprises a forming mould with a first mould part (5-fig.2) and a second mould part (4-fig.2) configured for interacting with each other for forming the products from the blank structure in the forming mould (at least ¶[0032]-[0035]), wherein the first mould part and/or the second mould part are movably arranged relative to each other in a pressing direction parallel to a longitudinal direction of the pressing module (P-fig.2; ¶[0040]), wherein the first mould part and the second mould part at least partly are configured for being arranged in an overlapping relationship in the longitudinal direction during forming of the cellulose products (fig.4; ¶[0050]), wherein:
the first mould part comprises a first mould part section (8-fig.2) and a second mould part section (9-fig.2) arranged in connection to the first mould part section (¶[0039]-[0040]), a base structure (7-fig.2) arranged in connection to the first mould part section and the second mould part section (¶[0037]; fig.2), wherein the first mould part section and the base structure are movably arranged in the longitudinal direction relative to each other (¶[0040]; figs.2-4),
upon movement of the first mould part section and the base structure relative to each other, the second mould part section is configured for being displaced in the lateral direction (figs.3-4; ¶[0056]), and
wherein the second mould part section is configured for being displaced relative to the first mould part section in a lateral direction of the pressing module during forming of the products in the forming mould (figs.3-4; ¶[0055]-[0056]),.
Chotard does not expressly teach a pressing module for forming cellulose products from an air-formed cellulose blank structure and a second mould part section is an elastic deformation element, wherein the first and second mould part section are configured for applying a forming pressure onto the air-formed cellulose blank structure in the range of 1-100 MPa during a single pressing operation upon forming of the cellulose products in the forming mould.
However, Hogblom a pressing module for forming cellulose products from an air-formed cellulose blank structure (3-fig.2a; 15:10-18) and a mould part section (7-fig.2a) is an elastic deformation element (27:17-22), wherein the mould part section (at least- are configured for applying a forming pressure onto the air-formed cellulose blank structure in the range of 1-100 MPa during a single pressing operation upon forming of the cellulose products in the forming mould (29:5-7).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the applicant’s claimed invention, to modify the device of Chotard, by having the second mould part have an elastic deformation element and pressing pressure, as taught by Hogblom, to be able to form containers quickly with a liquid or semi-liquid pulp at high forming pressure and high forming temperature. (Hogblom 2:13-19)
Chotard as modified by Hogblom further teaches:
Claim 2: The pressing module according to claim 1, wherein the first mould part section (Chotard: 5-fig.2) and the second mould part section (Chotard: 4-fig.2) in the overlapping relationship at least partly are configured for being positioned in a longitudinally overlapping section between the first mould part and the second mould part (Chotard: at least ¶[0050]; figs. 2-4).
Claims 3 and 16: The pressing module according to claim 1, wherein the second mould part section is configured for being displaced relative to the first mould part section in the lateral direction towards the second mould part from an initial position to a pressing position during forming of the cellulose products (Chotard: figs.3-4; ¶[0056]).
Claim 4: The pressing module according to claim 3, wherein the second mould part section is configured for being displaced relative to the first mould part section in the lateral direction away from the second mould part from the pressing position back to the initial position after forming of the cellulose products (Chotard: ¶[0059]).
Claim 5: The pressing module according claim 1, wherein the second mould part section comprises a pressing surface (Chotard: 10a-fig.4; Hogblom: see fig.4 showing 7 has a pressing surface shown by the arrows) configured for pressing the air-formed cellulose blank structure in the lateral direction towards the second mould part during forming of the cellulose products (Chotard: ¶[0059]; Hogblom: 27:12-22; see fig.4 showing 7 pressing laterally).
Claims 6 and 17: The pressing module according to claim 5, wherein the second mould part comprises a forming structure configured for interacting with the pressing surface, wherein the pressing surface is configured for pressing the air-formed cellulose blank structure in the lateral direction towards the forming structure during forming of the cellulose products (Chotard: figs.3-4; ¶[0056]); Hogblom: at least 3:14-28; fig.4).
Claims 7 and 18: The pressing module according to claim 6, wherein the forming structure is arranged as a recess in the second mould part and wherein the pressing surface is configured for pressing the air-formed cellulose blank structure into the recess during forming of the cellulose products (Hogblom: see fig.4 showing a recess where 3 is pointing; 25:23-26:15).
Claims 9 and 20: The pressing module according to claim 1, wherein the second mould part section is arranged as two or more deformation elements (Chotard:10-fig.2; ¶[0040]).
Claim 12: The method according to claim 11, wherein the method further comprises the step: apply a forming temperature onto the air-formed cellulose blank structure when the first mould part and the second mould part are displaced into at least partly overlapping relationship in the longitudinal direction, wherein the forming temperature is in the range of 100-300°C (Hogblom:30:19-29).
Claim 13: The method according to claim 12, wherein the method further comprises the step: establishing the forming pressure onto the air-formed cellulose blank structure between the first mould part section and the second mould part and between the second mould part section and the second mould part (Hogblom:11:15-30).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 26 December 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that combining Chotard and Hogblom will render Chotard unsatisfactory for it intended purpose and would require improper hindsight. Chotard teaches a second mould part sections include a deformation element 9, 10, and 14, which let alone would teach the claim limitation as a presently written. The combination would not render Chotard unusable for the intended use, but using the elastic element from Hogblum would allow a larger variety of containers that can be made. In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). In this instance both Chotard and Hogblom are for making containers and both using elastic elements in the deformation process, therefore Examiner did not use improper hindsight to come to the rejection.
In regard to new claim 22, Examiner agrees that Chotard in combination with Hogblom does not teach the claim limitation of "the elastic deformation element has a ring-like shape." However, this claim limitation is rejected under 35 USC §112(b), see rejection above.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 KATIE L GERTH whose telephone number is (303)297-4602. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 9am-4pm (CT).
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, Shelley Self can be reached at (571)272-4524. 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.
/KATIE L GERTH/Examiner, Art Unit 3731
/SHELLEY M SELF/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3731
Prosecution Insights