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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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) 1-2, 6, 8-10, 12-13, and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Read et al, US Patent Publication 2015/0044415.
Regarding claims 1 and 16, Read teaches a method for preparing a crease patterned fibre article [0001], the method comprising the steps of
c) depositing an aqueous suspension comprising fibres [0116-0117] onto one surface of a crease patterning device [0124 or 0143] and filtrating the aqueous suspension to form a patterned fibre web [0118], and
d) drying the patterned fibre web to obtain the crease patterned fibre article [0118].
Regarding claim 2, Read teaches a method for preparing a crease patterned fibre article [0001], the method comprising the steps of
c1) depositing an aqueous suspension comprising fibres onto a wire mesh [0117] and filtrating the aqueous suspension to form a fibre web [0118],
c2) patterning the fibre web by using a crease patterning device to form a patterned fibre web [0124 or 0143], and
d) drying the patterned fibre web to obtain the crease patterned fibre article [0118].
Regarding claims 1 and 2 above, Read teaches the act of forming patterned sheets for fabrics or other devices made up of cellulosic fibers that is then folded along those patterns in an origami style process to create three dimensional structures for many different uses.
The Examiner is considering the act of preparing a slurry of cellulose fibers to form a sheet with a pattern that is then folded in a folding machine [0144-0145] to read on the term crease patterning device as the device that either stamps a pattern into the sheet or forms by the drying of the slurry to form a pattern will both produce the areas of folding that will then be utilized to fold and produce the final three dimensional product.
Regarding claim 6, Read teaches that the crease patterns can be formed by 3-d printing [0091-0103], stamping or molding (reads on embossing [0104 and 0143]).
Regarding claim 8, Read teaches that the fibers are biodegradable (see abstract) made up of a cellulose plant materials such as jute (see claim 1 and [0052]).
Regarding claim 9, Read teaches the preferred use of the long fibers of Jute or bamboo [0052] and lists the sizing of cellulose fibers in table 1 [0043] that these have a diameter of 10-50 microns.
Regarding claim 10, Read further teaches that the depositing can occur with blade coating [0121] or extrusion heads [0124] of hot pressing [0125].
Regarding claim 12, Read further teaches removing the mesh from the article [0112].
Regarding claim 13 Read further teaches the act of folding the article into a 3D shape [0144].
Regarding claim 17, Read further teaches that made product is a textile 3D fabric [0099].
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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6-13, and 16-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goll, USP 4,698,257 in view of Neagu et al, US Patent Publication 2020/0039713.
Regarding claims 1-4, 6-13, and 16-17, Goll teaches the method of making a fiber based product through the steps of applying a slurry to a wire mesh (Fourdrinier wire see column 4 lines 34-39) then dewatering it to make a web (wet laid mat, column 4 line 41), then applying the wet laid mat to a crease patterning device (molding devices for a deep well defined molding pattern column 4 lines 57-65) made up of steel (column 5 line 22) with a polymer layer (column 5 lines 30-35), then drying (dryer item 23).
Goll further teaches that the slurry is made up of preferably 15-30% cellulose fibers (column 3 line 45) and diameters of the fibers being 0.1-25 microns (column 3 line 39) and is dewatered down to about 15% after on the wire (column 4 line 41) and before the dryer.
Goll teaches all of the actively claimed steps but is silent as to the formed patterns being a cleave pattern. While the function of the pattern is not required until the dependent claims, the act of utilizing a crease pattern will be addressed here.
In the same field of endeavor of making a cellulose based sheet or packaging material (see abstract), Neagu teaches that the formed cellulose molded article should have a suitable crease pattern so that the folding lines are identified to form the initial package [0186] and that the slurry is dried under vacuum [0223].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to utilize the pattern forming steps of Goll with the crease pattern presentation of Neagu for the benefit of having the fold patterns of the final product produced in the manufacturing of the base sheet in order to facilitate the folding actions of the final product in a known and conventual manner.
Claim(s) 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goll, USP 4,698,257 in view of Neagu et al, US Patent Publication 2020/0039713 and in further view of Scott et al, USP 6,846,382.
Regarding claim 5, Goll teaches the use of a Fourdrinier wire but is silent as to the amount of warp and weft wires and the diameter of the wires utilized.
Int eh same field of endeavor of creating infused packaging materials, Scott teaches that the typical Fourdrinier screen is a 75 mesh with a diameter of 0.006 inch with strands per inch being 60-100 (see column 5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to utilize the conventional wire density and diameters as shown as conventional by Scott in the Goll reference as it is simply silent to what these parameters are and utilizing the conventional sizes of a device is well within the ability of the average artisan.
Claim(s) 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Read et al, US Patent Publication 2015/0044415 in view of Martinez et al, US Patent Publication 2019/0300831.
Regarding claim 14 and 15, Read is silent to the addition of pharmaceuticals to the finished product.
In the same field of endeavor of making 3D shaped paper by a folding action [0124], Martinez teaches that the the cellulose passed paper can be shaped through origami style folding to form a 3D structure while being biocompatible [0067] and can include the addition of pharmaceuticals such as agarose [0153]to act in the treatment of the patent in contact with the paper (see examples).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to utilize the act of adding a pharmaceutical additive to the structure of Read for the benefit of being able to utilize the final product in a medical compacity as taught by Martinez in a known and conventional manner.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JACOB T MINSKEY whose telephone number is (571)270-7003. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-6 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, Abbas Rashid can be reached at 5712707475. 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.
JACOB T. MINSKEY
Examiner
Art Unit 1741
/JACOB T MINSKEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1748
Prosecution Insights