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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Page 2, Lines 8-10, filed 7/24/2026, with respect to the Abstract have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objection of 5/7/2026 has been withdrawn; however, a new objection to the abstract is presented below.
Applicant’s arguments, see Page 2, Lines 10-11, filed 7/24/2026, with respect to claims 2 and 5 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objection of 5/7/2026 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see Page 2, Lines 18-21, filed 7/24/2026, with respect to claims 7, 8, 11 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 U.S.C. 112(b) of claims 7, 8, and 11 have been withdrawn. The 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection of claim 15 is maintained.
Applicant’s arguments, see Page 3, Lines 6-16, filed 7/24/2026, with respect to the rejections of claims 1-6, 8-10, and 15 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground of rejection is made in view of Brossy et al. NO 165139 B.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-6, 8-10, and 15 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the reference Koch et al. DE 102010031421 B4 as applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure does not commence on a separate sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.52(b)(4) and 1.72(b). A new abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text.
Claim Objections
Claim 15 is objected to because of the following informalities: Newly added limitations were not shown with markings. The text of any added subject matter must be shown by underlining the added text (see 37 CFR 1.121(c)(2)). Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. In claim 1, applicant amended claim 1 . As a result of their dependency to claim 1, dependent claims 2 to 15 are rejected as well under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ).
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.
Regarding claim 15, line 1, applicant claims a “blank” formed. Applicant does not define the structure of the blank produced by the invention, thus it is unclear what structure is being claimed. Moreover, the claim is missing a transitional phrase.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to contain a reference to a claim previously set forth.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Brossy et al. NO 165139 B. Brossy discloses a blank formed from two or more layers of sheet material (Brossy Page 3, Para 4). The claimed phrase “using the profiled press plate according to claim 1” is being treated as a product by process limitation. As set forth in MPEP 2113, product by process claims are not limited to the manipulation of the recited steps, only the structure implied by the steps. Once a product appearing to be substantially the same or similar is found, a 35 U.S.C. 102/103 rejection may be made and the burden is shifted to applicant to show an unobvious difference. MPEP 2113.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hashimoto JP 2011143604 A. Hashimoto discloses a blank formed from two or more layers of sheet material (Hashimoto, Page 4, Lines 28-31: “corrugated cardboard sheet S”). The claimed phrase “using the profiled press plate according to claim 1” is being treated as a product by process limitation. As set forth in MPEP 2113, product by process claims are not limited to the manipulation of the recited steps, only the structure implied by the steps. Once a product appearing to be substantially the same or similar is found, a 35 U.S.C. 102/103 rejection may be made and the burden is shifted to applicant to show an unobvious difference. MPEP 2113.
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.
Claims 1-6, 9, 12, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brossy et al. NO 165139 B in view of Hashimoto JP 2011143604 A. NO 165139 B is a published patent henceforth to be referred to as the Brossy patent; and JP 2011143604 A is a published patent henceforth to be referred to as the Hashimoto patent.
Regarding claim 1, Brossy discloses a profiled press plate for forming a blank from two or more layers of sheet material in a platen press (Brossy Description Para [15], Page 2), comprising a plate portion (Brossy – 36; FIG. 5) comprising a first fixed profile portion on a surface thereof (See Brossy FIG. 5 below), the first fixed profile portion being configured to contact and compress the two or more layers of sheet material to form a seal therebetween about at least a portion of a periphery of the blank (Brossy Description Para [43], Page 5: This apparatus comprises a press equipped with two plates, one having a mold and the other having a mold in which at least the mold or mold forms on the sealed surface of the sheet), the plate portion further comprising a second fixed profile portion on a surface thereof (See Brossy FIG. 5A below), the second fixed profile portion being located inwardly of the first fixed profile portion and configured to contact and compress the two or more layers of sheet material (Brossy Description Para [1], Page 2), wherein the profiled press plate includes one or more inlets (Brossy – 40; FIG. 5) in fluid communication with a source of fluid and one or more outlets in fluid communication with the one or more inlets via a fluid passageway in the first fixed profile portion and/or in the second fixed profile portion (Brossy Claim 15: the mold and the counter mold are both provided with orifices for passage of air, the mouths (20,38) ending in a groove (21,22,39) communicating with the hot air blowing system (53))(See Brossy FIG. 5A), and wherein a flow of fluid through the fluid passageway is configured to alter the temperature (Brossy Description Para [29], Page 4: The temperature of the hot blowing air can vary substantially) of the first fixed profile portion and/or the second fixed profile portion (Brossy Claim 14: holes (20,38) which permits passage of hot blowing air) relative to the plate portion. Brossy fails to disclose a second fixed profile portion configured to form fold lines therein.
PNG
media_image1.png
379
827
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Brossy FIG. 5A
Hashimoto teaches a second fixed profile portion (Hashimoto – 18; FIG. 3) configured to compress the two or more layers of sheet material to form fold lines therein (Hashimoto, Description, Page 3, Lines 40-41). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the second fixed profile portion of the press plate, as disclosed by Brossy, to be configured to compress two or more layers of sheet material to form fold lines therein, as taught by Hashimoto, so as to provide a pressing member for sheet forming (See Hashimoto Description, Page 2, Lines 37-39).
Regarding claim 2, Brossy in view of Hashimoto discloses the profiled press (See claim 1 rejection above), wherein one or more regions of the sheet material bounded by the first fixed profile portion and/or the second fixed profile portion (See Brossy FIG. 5A above) are pressurized and/or cooled by the fluid (Brossy Description Para [15]).
Regarding claim 3, Brossy in view of Hashimoto discloses the profiled press (See claim 1 rejection above), wherein the plate portion (Brossy – 36) includes a substantially planar surface from which the first fixed profile portion and the second fixed profile portion extend (See Brossy FIG. 5B below).
PNG
media_image2.png
389
1054
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Brossy FIG. 5B
Regarding claim 4, Brossy in view of Hashimoto discloses the profiled press, wherein the plate portion includes a substantially planar surface (See claim 3 rejection above), Hashimoto teaches a first fixed profile portion (Hashimoto – 19; FIG. 1) and/or the second fixed profile portion (Hashimoto – 18; FIG. 1) extend from a substantially planar surface at an angle substantially perpendicular thereto (See Hashimoto FIG. 1).
Regarding claim 5, Brossy in view of Hashimoto discloses the profiled press, wherein the plate portion includes a substantially planar surface (See claim 3 rejection above), wherein the first fixed profile portion is spaced inwardly from a periphery of the substantially planar surface along at least a portion of its length (See Brossy FIG. 5A above).
Regarding claim 6, Brossy in view of Hashimoto discloses the profiled press (See claim 1 rejection above), however, Brossy fails to disclose wherein the first fixed profile portion extends substantially about a periphery of the blank, such that the first fixed profile portion forms a precompression area about substantially the entire periphery of the blank.
Hashimoto teaches a first profile portion (Hashimoto – 19) extends substantially about a periphery of the blank, such that the first profile portion (Hashimoto – 19; FIG. 3) forms a precompression area about substantially the entire periphery of the blank. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the first fixed profile portion of the press plate, disclosed by Brossy, to extend about a periphery of a blank, and form a precompression area about substantially the entire periphery of the blank, as taught by Hashimoto, so as to provide a pressing member for sheet forming (See Hashimoto Description Page 4, Lines 28-32).
Regarding claim 9, Brossy in view of Hashimoto discloses the profiled press, wherein the plate portion includes a substantially planar surface (See claim 3 rejection above), wherein the first fixed profile portion extends outwardly from the substantially planar surface of the press plate a greater distance than the second fixed profile portion (See Brossy FIG. 5B above).
Regarding claim 12, Brossy in view of Hashimoto discloses the profiled press, (See claim 1 rejection above), wherein the fluid comprises compressed air (See Brossy Description Para [62], Page 7: An air distribution system…distributes the air which is blown in or drawn out from it).
Regarding claim 13, Brossy in view of Hashimoto discloses the profiled press, (See claim 1 rejection above), wherein the fluid passageway includes one or more closure members therewithin, the one or more closure members configured to be opened or closed to allow or preclude fluid from flowing therethrough (See Brossy Description Para [88], Page 9).
Claims 7, 8, 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brossy et al. in view of Hashimoto as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Yu KR 101414463 B1. KR 101414463 B1 is a published patent hereinafter to be referred to as the Yu patent.
Regarding claim 7, Brossy in view of Hashimoto discloses the profiled press plate, wherein the first fixed profile portion extends substantially about a periphery of a blank (See claim 6 rejection above), however, Brossy in view of Hashimoto fails to disclose wherein the precompression area is formed through a combination of pressure applied to the sheet material by the first profile portion and a high temperature of the first profile portion.
Yu teaches a precompression area (Yu – 35, FIG. 8) formed through a combination of pressure applied to the sheet material by the first profile portion (Yu – 34-2, FIG. 7) and a high temperature of the first profile portion (Yu – FIG. 4; Yu Description, Page 5, Lines 30-31: The inside of the frame 34-1 and the outer frame 34-2 is compressed to crimp the form (31) used to form sheet molding volume in the heat pressing process at the upper portion 36 is to be formed.).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the profiled press plate of Brossy in view of Hashimoto to heat the first and second profile portions to a high temperature when applying pressure to compress the sheet material to form a precompression area and fold lines respectively, as taught by Yu, wherein heat improves the bond formed between the layers of sheet material compressed together. It is known within the art that high-temperature compression bonding creates a strong and thermally stable bond between two surfaces.
Regarding claim 8, Brossy in view of Hashimoto and Yu discloses the profiled press plate, wherein the precompression area is formed through a combination of pressure applied to the sheet material by the first profile portion and a high temperature of the first profile portion (See claim 7 rejection above). Brossy discloses the profile press wherein the first fixed profile portion comprises one or more first profile members (See Brossy FIG. 5A above). Hashimoto teaches one or more first profile members (Hahsimoto – 19) configured to form in the shape of the periphery of the blank (See Hashimoto FIG. 3).
Regarding claims 10 and 11, Brossy in view of Hashimoto discloses the profiled press, (See claim 1 rejection above), however, Brossy in view of Hashimoto fails to disclose the second fixed profile portion is configured to form fold lines in the sheet material through a combination of pressure applied to the sheet material by the second fixed profile portion and a high temperature of the second fixed profile portion.
Yu teaches a second profile portion (Yu – 34-1) is configured to form fold lines in the sheet material through a combination of pressure applied to the sheet material by the second profile portion and a high temperature of the second profile portion (Yu – FIG. 4; Yu Description, Page 5, Lines 30-31: The inside of the frame 34-1 and the outer frame 34-2 is compressed to crimp the form (31) used to form sheet molding volume in the heat pressing process at the upper portion 36 is to be formed.).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the profiled press plate of Brossy in view of Hashimoto to heat the first and second profile portions to a high temperature when applying pressure to compress the sheet material to form a precompression area and fold lines respectively, as taught by Yu, wherein heat improves the bond formed between the layers of sheet material compressed together. It is known within the art that high-temperature compression bonding creates a strong and thermally stable bond between two surfaces.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brossy et al. in view of Hashimoto as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Wollny et al. DE 10054002 A1. DE 10054002 A1 is a published patent, hereinafter to be referred to as the Wollny patent.
Regarding claim 14, Brossy in view of Hashimoto discloses the profiled press plate (See claim 1 rejection above), however, Brossy in view of Hashimoto fails to disclose wherein the fluid is contained in the first profile portion and/or the section profile portion using one or more containment members.
Wollny teaches a press plate comprised of one or more containment members (Wollny – 6, FIG. 4), wherein fluid is contained (Wollny, Description, Page 1: the steam channels on at least one plate edge open into a collecting channel, which is set up for steam inlet and steam outlet.).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the profiled press plate of Brossy in view of Hashimoto, to include a containment member to contain fluid, as taught by Wollny, to control fluid flow through the profiled press plate (Wollny Description, Page 5: At the ends of the collecting channel holes 6 control devices 9 , according to the embodiment control piston, for controlling the steam inlet 10 and the steam outlet 11 indicated by arrows are arranged.).
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 DARLINGTON N IBEKWE whose telephone number is (571)272-2474. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8am - 4:00pm.
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, Christopher Templeton can be reached at (571) 270-1477. 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.
D.N.I
Patent Examiner
Art Unit 3725
/Christopher L Templeton/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3725
