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 Amendment
The amendment filed 12/16/2025 has been entered. Claims 1-8 have been amended. Claim 9 is a newly submitted claim. Accordingly, claims 1-9 remain pending and are the claims addressed and examined below.
In view of the amendments to the claimed subject matter, the following new grounds of rejections are necessitated.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 12/16/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-8 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of prior art, previously made of record in the 11/18/2024 IDS and considered in an updated search necessitated by the amendments to the claims, determined to be pertinent to the amended claims.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
[AltContent: rect]
Claims 1-4, 7 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Kiss (US 4,648,934; made of record in the 11/18/2024 IDS; herein referred to as Kiss).
As to claim 1: Kiss discloses the claimed method for processing planar material webs made of a fiber-containing material (i.e., process for molding three-dimensional moldings using non-woven fabric blanks 4) (Kiss at column 1, lines 7-9; FIGs. 1-4),
wherein the planar material webs are fed as material web portions of endless material webs for a production of three-dimensional products (i.e., feeding in of non-woven fabric blank 4) (Kiss at column 2, lines 47-48; column 6, lines 9-10; FIGs. 1-2),
wherein, prior to pressing a planar material web for shaping, the planar material web is deformed by pressing the planar material web in at least one direction substantially without stretching or compressing to form a three-dimensional preform having a shape corresponding to a shape of a three-dimensional product in a region of the three-dimensional product (i.e., FIG. 2 shows a stage in the process according to the invention in which the fabric feed-in has just finished and the fabric blank 4 has been locally pressed into the lower hot press mold 2 by the lowering of ram head 7; non-woven fabric blank 4 is fed in from the edge and the original blank 4 has assumed shape 4' which is not identical with the contour of the lower press mold 2) (Kiss at column 1, lines 12-18; column 6, lines 9-12; FIGs. 1-3).
As to claim 2: Kiss discloses the method for processing planar material webs of claim 1. Kiss further discloses the claimed wherein the planar material web is substantially freely movable during the deforming (Kiss at FIG. 1).
As to claim 3: Kiss discloses the method for processing planar material webs of claim 1. Kiss further discloses the claimed wherein the planar material web is pushed together laterally on a surface during the deforming (Kiss at FIG. 2).
As to claim 4: Kiss discloses the method for processing planar material webs of claim 1. Kiss further discloses the claimed wherein at least one region of the planar material web is selectively fixed in terms of position and/or orientation with respect to a geometry of the three-dimensional object product to be produced during the deforming (Kiss at column 2, lines 47-52; FIG. 2).
As to claim 7: Kiss discloses the method for processing planar material webs of claim 1. Kiss further discloses the claimed wherein deforming takes place in at least two preforming steps (Kiss at FIGs. 1-4).
As to claim 9: Kiss discloses the method for processing planar material webs of claim 1. Kiss further discloses the claimed wherein the shape of the three-dimensional preform corresponds to a shape of a final three-dimensional product to be produced by the method (Kiss at column 6, lines 25-27; FIG. 4).
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.
[AltContent: rect]4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kiss as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hain (US 4,313,899; herein referred to as Hain).
As to claim 5: Kiss discloses the method for processing planar material webs of claim 1. Kiss fails to explicitly disclose the claimed wherein at least one region of the planar material web is selectively severed with respect to a geometry of the three-dimensional product to be produced prior to and/or during the deforming.
However, Hain teaches a process for forming laminated paperboard containers by deep drawing a paperboard laminate into container mold (Hain at column 1, lines 6-13; FIG. 3). Hain further teaches a continuous sheet of the laminate is drawn in a continuous process from a moistening station where a selected amount of moisture is added to the paperboard substrate, to a forming station where the preconditioned laminate is formed into the container; a coating apparatus at the moistening station applies warm water to the bare (i.e. uncoated) side of the paperboard, and the temperature of the water may be varied in order to preheat the laminate to a desired degree prior to forming thereof; and the moistened, preheated laminate may be score and die cut as desired (i.e., wherein at least one region of the planar material web is selectively severed with respect to a geometry of the three-dimensional product to be produced prior to and/or during the deforming) (Hain at column 3, lines 35-57; FIG. 3).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to utilize cutting/severing of the planar material web as such is known in the art of planar material web processing given the discussion of Hain above presenting a reasonable expectation of success; and doing so is combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
As to claim 6: Kiss discloses the method for processing planar material webs of claim 1. Kiss fails to explicitly disclose the claimed wherein at least one region of the planar web is selectively moistened and/or subjected to additivation with respect to a geometry of the three-dimensional product to be produced prior to the deforming.
However, Hain teaches a process for forming laminated paperboard containers by deep drawing a paperboard laminate into container mold (Hain at column 1, lines 6-13; FIG. 3). Hain further teaches a continuous sheet of the laminate is drawn in a continuous process from a moistening station where a selected amount of moisture is added to the paperboard substrate, to a forming station where the preconditioned laminate is formed into the container (i.e., wherein at least one region of the planar web is selectively moistened and/or subjected to additivation with respect to a geometry of the three-dimensional product to be produced prior to the deforming) (Hain at column 3, lines 35-57; FIG. 3).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to utilize a moistening station for the planar material web as such is known in the art of planar material web processing given the discussion of Hain above presenting a reasonable expectation of success; and doing so is combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
[AltContent: rect]
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kiss as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Nelson et al. (US 2009/0071108; herein referred to as Nelson).
As to claim 8: Kiss discloses the method for processing planar material webs of claim 1. Kiss fails to explicitly disclose the claimed wherein a deformation of a plurality of portions of the planar material web for a corresponding plurality of products takes place simultaneously and the portions are decoupled from one another such that an individual deformation of the portions is carried out, wherein no mutual influence of the portions due to the respective deformation occurs.
However, Nelson teaches processes for manufacturing shaped articles such as shaped structures, containers, packaging, or blisters, suitable for unit-dose packaging (Nelson at [0045], [0046]). Nelson further teaches a plurality of primary shaping plungers 43 in die set 40 for shaping a strip of film into a desired product simultaneously with individual deformation being carried out such that no mutual influence of the portions due to the respective deformation occurs (Nelson at [0082], FIG. 9)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate a deformation of a plurality of portions of the planar material for a corresponding plurality of products taking place simultaneously as such is known in the art of material web processing given the discussion of Nelson above presenting a reasonable expectation of success; and doing so is the use of a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way.
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 BAILEIGH K. DARNELL whose telephone number is (469)295-9287. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9am-5pm, MST.
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, Galen H. Hauth can be reached at (571)270-5516. 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.
/BAILEIGH KATE DARNELL/Examiner, Art Unit 1743
/GALEN H HAUTH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1743