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
Newly submitted claims 34-57 (Group II) are directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed, claims 1, 3-11, 15-20, and 26-33 (Group I) for the following reasons:
Groups I & II lack unity of invention because Group II does not share the same or corresponding technical feature. For example, Group II referring to a special technical feature of having a step of reorienting a hot-pressing mould with the pressing cavity, wherein the surface temperature of the opposed pressing surfaces of the hot-pressing mould is in the order of 80 – 200 degrees C (specific heating range) when the hot pressing is carried out. Those mentioned special technical features are lacking from Group I, therefore, Group II, is restricted and withdrawn (Groups I has been originally selected).
Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, claims 34-57 are withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
To preserve a right to petition, the reply to this action must distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement. Otherwise, the election shall be treated as a final election without traverse. Traversal must be timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are subsequently added, applicant must indicate which of the subsequently added claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-11, 15-20, and 26-33 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over AAPA (Applicants Admitted Prior Arts).
Regarding claim 1: AAPA discloses a method of making a three-dimensional product comprising a bottom and an upright peripheral wall extending from said bottom, by hot pressing in a pressing cavity of a blank cut out of a web comprising a layer of a non-woven airlaid fluff material, see for example (filed specification; background of the invention, “It is known in the art to manufacture three-dimensional packaging products on the basis of a non-woven airlaid fluff material web”); the blank comprises a first segment define the bottom, and a plurality of further segments extending from the first segment define together the upright peripheral wall and opposite edge portions, see for example (background of the invention; “The blank has a first portion which is to define the rectangular bottom of the packaging product,…second portion that is to define the upright peripheral wall”);
The Office takes an official notice that a step of contacting edge portions of neighboring of the segments is old and well known, see for example (U.S. Pat. No. 5,253,801; Figs. 1-7 & U.S. Pat. No. 4,779,758; Figs. 4-6 & U.S. Pat. No. 3,135,455; Figs. 1-5), also the hot pressing to be a hydrogen bonding, is well known in the art, see for example (U.S. Pub. No. 2020/0180232 & 2020/0171874 & 2020/0172902).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date to have modified AAPA’s to use hydrogen bonding agent along with contacting the edge portions of the segments, as a matter of design choice to be made, in order to come up with stronger seal and/or bonds between the edges of the blank.
AAPA discloses that the fluff material comprises natural fibers (background; “on the basis of a web comprising natural fibers”). AAPA does not disclose the exact content of the fluff material to be less than 10 percent by dry weight thermoplastic fibers, less than 10 percent by dry weight adhesive, and less than 2 percent by dry weight of thermosetting resin. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention, to have modified AAPA non-woven airlaid fluff material to comprise less than 10 percent by dry weight thermoplastic fibers, less than 10 percent by dry weight adhesive, and less than 2 percent by dry weight of thermosetting resin, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205, USPQ 215.
Regarding claim 3: AAPA does not suggest the use of natural fibers to be cellulose based fibers. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention, to have modified AAPA fibers to be cellulose based fibers, since it has been heled that it is within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Regarding claim 4: AAPA does not suggest the use of airlaid fluff material are thermoplastic fibers with a length in the range of 3 to 18 mm. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention, to have modified AAPA non-woven airlaid fluff material to have a length in the range of 3 to 18 mm, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205, USPQ 215.
Regarding claim 5: AAPA does not suggest the use of non-woven airlaid fluff material comprises no thermoplastic fibers. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention, to have modified AAPA non-woven airlaid fluff material to comprise no thermoplastic fibers, since it has been heled that it is within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Regarding claim 6: AAPA does not mention a step of pressing cavity such that the edge portions contact each other in the pressing cavity. However, the office takes an official notice that such step of pressing cavity to seal edge portions and get then in contact, is very old and known in the art, see for example (U.S. Pat. No. 5,253,801; Figs. 1-7 & U.S. Pat. No. 4,779,758; Figs. 4-6 & U.S. Pat. No. 3,135,455; Figs. 1-5).
Regarding claim 7: AAPA does not disclose the blank with a temperature of 80 – 200 degrees C when the hot pressing is carried out. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention, to have modified AAPA hot pressing to be carried out for the blank to reach temperature between 80 – 200 degrees C, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205, USPQ 215.
Regarding claim 8: AAPA does not disclose a cut out of the web to are continuously advanced to the pressing cavity. However, the Office takes an official notice that such step of continuously feeding web to pressing cavity to form cut and shape of the web/blank is very old and known in the art.
Regarding claims 9 & 16: AAPA does not disclose the use of hydrogen bonding as a hot pressing. However, the Office takes an official notice that the hot pressing to be a hydrogen bonding, is well known in the art, see for example (U.S. Pub. No. 2020/0180232 & 2020/0171874 & 2020/0172902).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date to have modified AAPA’s to use hydrogen bonding agent, as a matter of design choice to be made, in order to come up with stronger seal and/or bonds between the edges of the blank.
Regarding claim 10: AAPA does not disclose the overlap edge portions of the edges to be 1-5 mm. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention, to have modified AAPA by having the edge portions overlapping each other by 1-5 mm, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205, USPQ 215.
Regarding claims 11 & 15 & 17: it is noted that within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. Therefore, having the layer to comprise sizing agent and/or a surface sizing agent selected from group consisting of a fluorochemical, an alky ketene dimer, an alkenyl succinic anhydride, etc. would be nothing more than an obvious design choice to be made to select a known material.
Regarding claim 18; AAPA does not disclose the blank to be cut out, see for example (background; “a flat rec-tangular blank that has been cut out of the web”). Therefore, forming a V-shaped cut out, would be nothing more than a design choice to be made.
Regarding claim 19: AAPA may not suggest the exact claimed blank thickness to range of 1.5 – 20 mm. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date to have modified AAPA by substituting the blank with one having thickness to range between 1.5 – 20 mm, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 20: AAPA may not suggest the exact claimed blank with a density selected in a range of 30 kg/cm ^3 – 350 kg/m^3, and the three-dimensional product having a density of 700 – 1.500 kg/cm^3. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date to have modified AAPA by having the blank with a density selected in a range of 30 kg/cm ^3 – 350 kg/m^3, and the three-dimensional product having a density of 700 – 1.500 kg/cm^3, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 26: AAPA does not suggest the use of internal sizing agent and/or surface sizing agent and/or mechanical strength of the blank, wherein the internal sizing agent and/or surface sizing agent is a fluorochemical, an alkyl ketene dimer, an alkenyl succinic anhydride, a rosin, a wax, lignin, a modified starch or water glass. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention, to have modified AAPA use of internal sizing agent and/or surface sizing agent and/or mechanical strength of the blank, wherein the internal sizing agent and/or surface sizing agent is a fluorochemical, an alkyl ketene dimer, an alkenyl succinic anhydride, a rosin, a wax, lignin, a modified starch or water glass, since it has been heled that it is within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Regarding claims 27-33: AAPA does not disclose the pressure applied to the blank to at least be 50 kg/cm^2, 200 kg/cm^2, 220-300 kg/cm^2, and/or 50 kg/cm^2, when hot pressing is carried out nor the natural fibers being having Kajaani length in an average length range of 1.8 to 4.0 mm. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date to have modified AAPA by having the blank to at least be 50 kg/cm^2, 200 kg/cm^2, 220-300 kg/cm^2, and/or 50 kg/cm^2, when hot pressing is carried out nor the natural fibers being having Kajaani length in an average length range of 1.8 to 4.0 mm, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges or value involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/22/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the previously filed Office Action does not cite a single actual prior art reference that discloses the claimed method, while the used AAPA merely describes the general field and problems, not specific prior art disclosers.
The Office believes that and as admitted by the applicant, the Office Action referred to the Applicant Admitted Prior Arts, AAPA. In another word, all admitted and cited arts in the filed background of the invention was used in the rejection, such as WO2022/009130, WO2007/113750, and any other made admissions in the background. The filed background of the invention is much more than providing a general field and problems descriptions, rather addressed and admitted different arts and structures in use, which very much reads over the claimed invention. The Office as set forth above giving the claims the broadest reasonable meaning believes that AAPA indeed reads over the claimed invention.
Applicant argues that AAPA does not show the claimed a bottom and an upright peripheral wall extending therefrom nor the use of hot pressing in a pressing cavity.
The Office believes that such argued upon limitations were mentioned in the field Office Action by referring to some section in AAPA, see for example (Office Action; page 3, 1st paragraph; “see for example (background of the invention; “The blank has a first portion which is to define the rectangular bottom of the packaging product,…second portion that is to define the upright peripheral wall”).
Applicant further argues regarding the claimed limitations of “hydrogen bonding” pointing out to the cited arts are non-analogous art as they are not in the field of endeavor of forming three-dimensional product nor is it reasonably pertinent to the problem of creating packaging product with a relatively tall upright wall that resists leakage.
It has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, the mentioned and cited multiple arts showing a use of “hydrogen bonding” for bonding and holding parts together, which would make it completely obvious to be used in the packaging and making containers art. Those skilled in the art would consider all and any suitable and strong type of bond to be used, only a matter of design choice to be made.
Applicant further argued deeper to the nature of the applied arts as being non-analogous art to the claimed invention. As explained above, a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned (a use of specific bonding), in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
Applicant went further and argued the claimed specific ranges and values. The Office as explained in the previous Office Action and set forth above believes that discovering any ranges or value is only a matter of design choice by involving a routine skill in the art. It has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205, USPQ 215.
The Office not as argued upon by the applicant has pointed out to and cited multiple arts in the previously filed Office Action to support the taken positions of “well known” and “official notices”.
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 SAMEH TAWFIK whose telephone number is (571)272-4470. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri. 8:00 AM - 4:00 PM.
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, Shelle 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.
/SAMEH TAWFIK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3731
Prosecution Insights