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
Receipt is acknowledged of an amendment and RCE, filed on 08/19/2026, which has been placed of record and entered in the file.
Status of the claims:
Claims 1-4, 6-12, and 14-18 are pending for examination
Cancellation of claims 5 and 13 is acknowledged
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 08/19/2026 has been entered.
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 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 1-4, 6-8, 11-12 and 14-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dai (US 20020193222 A1) in view of Larsson et al. (US 20190070819 A1), and in further view of Alexander et al. (US 4755128 A).
Regarding claim 1, Dai discloses a forming mould (1, 3) for forming three-dimensional cellulose products (Fig. 9) from a blank structure (b), wherein the forming mould (1, 3) comprises a first mould part (3) and a second mould part (1), wherein the first mould part (3) and the second mould part (1) are movable relative to each other in a pressing direction (Up-Down movement) and arranged to be pressed relative to each other during forming of the cellulose products (Fig. 9),
wherein the first mould part (3) comprises a movable element (32) displaceable between an extended state (Fig. 4) and a retracted state (Fig. 8),
wherein the movable element (32) in the extended state (Fig. 4) is arranged as a protruding body extending in the pressing direction (downward direction) relative to a surrounding pressing surface (31) of the first mould part (3),
wherein the movable element (32) in the extended state (Fig. 4) is configured for inserting the cellulose blank structure (b) into the second mould part (1) and ejecting the cellulose products (Fig. 9) from the forming mould (1, 3-demolding process [0026]),
wherein the movable element (32) in the retracted state (Fig. 8) is arranged as a pressing surface (See Annotated Fig. 8 below) cooperating with the surrounding pressing surface (See Annotated Fig. 8 below) for forming the cellulose products (Fig. 7 and 9).
PNG
media_image1.png
630
736
media_image1.png
Greyscale
However, Dai does not expressly disclose that the cellulose blank structure is an air-formed cellulose blank structure, and wherein the forming mould is configured to exert a forming pressure PF in the range of 1-100 MPa and a forming temperature TF in the range of 100-300C to the air-formed cellulose blank structure during forming of the cellulose products, and wherein the cellulose blank structure comprises at least 95% cellulose fibres.
Larsson in a related invention of forming three dimensional cellulose products ([0050]) from an air-formed blank structure (1a; [0018]-[0019]) using a forming mould (3), wherein the forming mould is configured to exert a forming pressure PF in the range of 1-100 MPa and a forming temperature TF in the range of 100-300C to the air-formed cellulose blank structure during forming of the cellulose products ([0022]] and [0018]), and wherein the cellulose blank structure comprises at least 95% cellulose fibres ([0063]; “the cellulose product may comprise 90-98 weight percent cellulose fibres and 2-10 weight percent other substances, such as starch, sizing agents, and/or other suitable additives and substances).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the blank of Dai to be an air-formed cellulose blank and exerting a forming pressure PF in the range of 1-100 MPa and a forming temperature TF in the range of 100-300C to the air-formed cellulose blank structure during forming of the cellulose products and having at least 95 percent cellulose fibers, as taught by Larsson in order to provide a more sustainable and recyclable cellulose product while providing for cost-efficient and rational production of a cellulose product with improved mechanical properties ([0015] and [0020]). Such modification is a simple substitution of one known blank type with another known blank type to yield predictable results in cellulose molding. Additionally, Larsson teaches The cellulose product may comprise at least 90 weight percent cellulose fibres and may comprise 90-98 weight percent cellulose fibres ([0035], [0063]). Those ranges overlap or encompass at least 95 percent, and a claimed range that overlaps or lies inside a prior art range creates a prima facie case of obviousness. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have ranges that is within the claimed range as recited, 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. Higher cellulose content improves recyclability and sustainability, while additives are added only as needed for strength and other purposes. Routine optimization of a result-effective variable to an intermediate value (90 percent) inside the already disclosed 90-98 percent window is ordinarily obvious.
Wherein an argument is made that Dai in view of Larsson does not eject the cellulose products from the forming mould using the movable element.
Alexander teaches ejector means for ejecting an article formed in the female mold element (Col 2 lines 52-55).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the movable element of Dai in view of Larsson by substituting it with movable element that functions in its extended state as an ejector as taught by Alexander in order to reliably and automatically eject the product from the mould. In this instance, a skilled artisan would have recognized that the combination of Dai as modified with the teachings of Alexander involves no more than the predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions, and that one of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted one known element for another and the results of the substitution would have been predictable.
Dai is further silent regarding wherein in the retracted state the pressing surface is arranged flush with the surrounding pressing surface.
Alexander teaches it is old and well known to provide a forming mould wherein retracted state the pressing surface (Pressing surface of 30, 36) is arranged flush with the surrounding pressing surface (Surrounding pressing surface of 38, 28) (“downwardly-facing mold surfaces 36, 38 of the clamp 30 and male mold element, respectively, cooperate to provide a substantially continuous male article-molding surface for pressing sheet material into the female die assembly 22.” Col 4 lines 64-68…See annotated Fig. 2 of Alexander below).
PNG
media_image2.png
314
642
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the pressing surfaces of Dai in as modified by substituting it with pressing surfaces that is flush with surrounding pressing surface as taught by Alexander as such would be a matter of design choice depending on the type of final container product desired to be made (for example a container with a continuous flat bottom surface) because it will aid in minimizing wrinkle during the molding process. In this instance, a skilled artisan would have recognized that the combination of Dai as modified with the teachings of Alexander involves no more than the predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions, and that one of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted one known element for another and the results of the substitution would have been predictable.
Dai as modified further teaches:
Regarding claim 2, wherein the movable element (32 of Dai) is arranged as a displaceable structural part of the first mould part (3; Figs. 4-5, and 8 of Dai)
Regarding claim 3, wherein in the extended state (Fig. 4 32 of Dai) the movable element (32 of Dai) has a protruding configuration with an extension in the pressing direction (Fig. 4 32 of Dai).
Regarding claim 4, wherein the movable element is (32 of Dai) arranged in a cavity (Cavity of 3/31-See Fig. 5 of Dai) in the first mould part (Fig. 5 of Dai).
Regarding claim 6, wherein the first mould part (3 of Dai) further comprises an actuator (33 of Dai) connected to the movable element (32 of Dai), wherein the actuator (33 of Dai) is configured for displacing the movable element (Figs. 4-8 of Dai).
Regarding claim 7, wherein the actuator (33 of Dai) is arranged as a spring (Fig. 4 of Dai) configured for displacing the movable element (32 of Dai) from the retracted state (Fig. 8 of Dai) to the extended state (Fig. 4 of Dai).
Regarding claim 8, Dai discloses the actuator (33 of Dai) configured for displacing the movable element (32 of Dai) between the extended state (Fig. 4 of Dai) and the retracted state (Fig. 8 of Dai) but is silent regarding the actuator being electric actuator, a hydraulic actuator, or a pneumatic actuator.
Larsson teaches the use of hydraulic actuator for actuating movable element (4; [0070]-[0074])
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the actuator of Dai as modified by substituting it with a hydraulic actuator as taught by Larsson in order to reliably and automatically eject the product from the mould. Additionally, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material/structure on the basis of its suitability for the intended use is a matter of obvious design choice.
Alexander further teaches the use of hydraulic and/or pneumatic actuator/system for actuating movable element (Col 5 lines 1-10)
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the actuator of Dai as modified by substituting it with a hydraulic/pneumatic actuator as taught by Alexander in order to reliably and automatically eject the product from the mould. Additionally, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material/structure on the basis of its suitability for the intended use is a matter of obvious design choice.
Regarding claim 11, A method for forming three-dimensional cellulose products (Fig. 9) a cellulose blank structure (b) in a forming mould (1, 3), wherein the forming mould (1, 3) comprises a first mould part (3) and a second mould part (1), wherein the first mould part (3) and the second mould part (1) are movable relative to each other in a pressing direction (Up-Down movement) and arranged to be pressed relative to each other during forming of the cellulose products (Fig. 9),
wherein the first mould part (3) comprises a movable element (32), wherein the movable element displaceable between an extended state (Fig. 4) and a retracted state (Fig. 8),
wherein in the extended state (Fig. 4) the movable element (32) is arranged as a protruding body extending in the pressing direction (downward direction) relative to a surrounding pressing surface of the first mould part (3), wherein in the retracted state ((Fig. 8) the movable element (32) is arranged as a pressing surface (See Annotated Fig. 8 above) cooperating with the surrounding pressing surface (See Annotated Fig. 8 above), wherein the method comprises the steps:
providing the cellulose blank structure (b) and arranging the cellulose blank structure (b) between the first mould part (3) and the second mould part (1);
arranging the movable element (32) in the extended state (Fig. 4) and inserting the cellulose blank structure (b) into the second mould part (1) with the movable element (32) upon movement of the first mould part (3) and/or the second mould part (1);
arranging the movable element (32) in the retracted state ((Fig. 8) and forming the cellulose product (Figs. 7 and 9) from the cellulose blank structure (b), and applying a forming pressure (via action of pressing) onto the cellulose blank structure (b) between the first mould part (3) and the second mould part (1);
displacing the movable element (32) from the retracted state (Fig. 8) to the extended state (Fig. 6), wherein the formed cellulose products (Fig. 7) are ejected from the forming mould (3, 1) upon movement of the movable element (32) from the retracted state (Fig. 8) to the extended state (Fig. 4-via demolding [0026]).
However, Dai does not expressly disclose that the cellulose blank structure is an air-formed cellulose blank structure, and wherein the forming mould is configured to exert a forming pressure PF in the range of 1-100 MPa and a forming temperature TF in the range of 100-300C to the air-formed cellulose blank structure during forming of the cellulose products, and wherein the cellulose blank structure comprises at least 95% cellulose fibres.
Larsson in a related invention of forming three dimensional cellulose products ([0050]) from an air-formed blank structure (1a; [0018]-[0019]) using a forming mould (3), wherein the forming mould is configured to exert a forming pressure PF in the range of 1-100 MPa and a forming temperature TF in the range of 100-300C to the air-formed cellulose blank structure during forming of the cellulose products ([0022]] and [0018]), and wherein the cellulose blank structure comprises at least 95% cellulose fibres ([0063]; “the cellulose product may comprise 90-98 weight percent cellulose fibres and 2-10 weight percent other substances, such as starch, sizing agents, and/or other suitable additives and substances).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the blank of Dai to be an air-formed cellulose blank and exerting a forming pressure PF in the range of 1-100 MPa and a forming temperature TF in the range of 100-300C to the air-formed cellulose blank structure during forming of the cellulose products and having at least 95 percent cellulose fibers, as taught by Larsson in order to provide a more sustainable and recyclable cellulose product while providing for cost-efficient and rational production of a cellulose product with improved mechanical properties ([0015] and [0020]). Such modification is a simple substitution of one known blank type with another known blank type to yield predictable results in cellulose molding. Additionally, Larsson teaches the cellulose product may comprise at least 90 weight percent cellulose fibres and may comprise 90-98 weight percent cellulose fibres ([0035], [0063]). Those ranges overlap or encompass at least 95 percent, and a claimed range that overlaps or lies inside a prior art range creates a prima facie case of obviousness. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have ranges that is within the claimed range as recited, 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. Higher cellulose content improves recyclability and sustainability, while additives are added only as needed for strength and other purposes. Routine optimization of a result-effective variable to an intermediate value (90 percent) inside the already disclosed 90-98 percent window is ordinarily obvious.
Wherein an argument is made that Dai in view of Larsson does not eject the cellulose products from the forming mould using the movable element.
Alexander teaches ejector means for ejecting an article formed in the female mold element (Col 2 lines 52-55).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the movable element of Dai in view of Larsson by substituting it with movable element that functions in its extended state as an ejector as taught by Alexander in order to reliably and automatically eject the product from the mould. In this instance, a skilled artisan would have recognized that the combination of Dai as modified with the teachings of Alexander involves no more than the predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions, and that one of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted one known element for another and the results of the substitution would have been predictable.
Dai is further silent regarding wherein in the retracted state the pressing surface is arranged flush with the surrounding pressing surface.
Alexander teaches it is old and well known to provide a forming mould wherein retracted state the pressing surface (Pressing surface of 30, 36) is arranged flush with the surrounding pressing surface (Surrounding pressing surface of 38, 28) (“downwardly-facing mold surfaces 36, 38 of the clamp 30 and male mold element, respectively, cooperate to provide a substantially continuous male article-molding surface for pressing sheet material into the female die assembly 22.” Col 4 lines 64-68…See annotated Fig. 2 of Alexander below).
PNG
media_image2.png
314
642
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the pressing surfaces of Dai in as modified by substituting it with pressing surfaces that is flush with surrounding pressing surface as taught by Alexander as such would be a matter of design choice depending on the type of final container product desired to be made (for example a container with a continuous flat bottom surface) because it will aid in minimizing wrinkle during the molding process. In this instance, a skilled artisan would have recognized that the combination of Dai as modified with the teachings of Alexander involves no more than the predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions, and that one of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted one known element for another and the results of the substitution would have been predictable.
Regarding claim 12, wherein the method further comprises the step: arranging the movable element ((32 of Dai)) in the extended state (Fig. 4 32 of Dai) in a protruding configuration with an extension in the pressing direction (Fig. 4 32 of Dai).
Regarding claim 14, wherein the first mould part (3 of Dai) further comprises an actuator (33 of Dai) connected to the movable element (32 of Dai), wherein the method further comprises the step: displacing the movable element (32 of Dai) with the actuator (33 of Dai; Fig. 8).
Regarding claim 15, wherein the actuator (33 of Dai) is arranged as a spring (Fig. 4 of Dai) displacing the movable element (32 of Dai) from the retracted state (Fig. 8 of Dai) to the extended state (Fig. 4 of Dai).
Regarding claim 16, Dai discloses the actuator (33 of Dai) configured for displacing the movable element (32 of Dai) between the extended state (Fig. 4 of Dai) and the retracted state (Fig. 8 of Dai) but is silent regarding the actuator being electric actuator, a hydraulic actuator, or a pneumatic actuator.
Larsson teaches the use of hydraulic actuator for actuating movable element (4; [0070]-[0074])
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the actuator of Dai as modified by substituting it with a hydraulic actuator as taught by Larsson in order to reliably and automatically eject the product from the mould. Additionally, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material/structure on the basis of its suitability for the intended use is a matter of obvious design choice.
Alexander further teaches the use of hydraulic and/or pneumatic actuator/system for actuating movable element (Col 5 lines 1-10)
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the actuator of Dai as modified by substituting it with a hydraulic/pneumatic actuator as taught by Alexander in order to reliably and automatically eject the product from the mould. Additionally, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material/structure on the basis of its suitability for the intended use is a matter of obvious design choice.
Claims 9-10 and 17-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dai (US 20020193222 A1) in view of Larsson et al. (US 20190070819 A1), and Alexander et al. (US 4755128 A), and in further view of Sakurai (US 6435855 A).
Regarding claim 9, Dai as modified teaches the movable element (32 of Dai), the second mould part (3 of Dai) but is silent regarding movable element comprises an embossing pattern and/or wherein the second mould part comprises a mould embossing pattern, wherein the embossing pattern and/or mould embossing pattern are configured for forming a structural pattern in the cellulose products upon forming in the forming mould.
Sakurai teaches a second mould part (2a) comprises a mould embossing pattern (Col 9 lines 57-65), mould embossing pattern are configured for forming a structural pattern in the products upon forming in the forming mould (Col 9 lines 57-65).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the mould of Dai as modified by a mould bearing an embossed marks, character, or a like as taught by Sakurai which makes it possible for the molded product to bear at least one of embossed and/or carved product marks, direction marks of the product, specifications of the product, mold unit's serial numbers, or like carved and/or embossed marks (Col 9 lines 57-65).
Regarding claim 10, wherein the embossing pattern and/or the mould embossing pattern is configured as a logotype, a barcode, a QR code, or other identification code (Col 9 lines 57-65 Sakurai).
Regarding claim 17, Dai as modified teaches the movable element (32 of Dai), the second mould part (3 of Dai) but is silent regarding movable element comprises an embossing pattern and/or wherein the second mould part comprises a mould embossing pattern, wherein the embossing pattern and/or mould embossing pattern are formed as a structural pattern in the cellulose products upon forming in the forming mould.
Sakurai teaches a second mould part (2a) comprises a mould embossing pattern (Col 9 lines 57-65), mould embossing pattern are formed as a structural pattern in the products upon forming in the forming mould (Col 9 lines 57-65).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the mould of Dai as modified by a mould bearing an embossed marks, character, or a like as taught by Sakurai which makes it possible for the molded product to bear at least one of embossed and/or carved product marks, direction marks of the product, specifications of the product, mold unit's serial numbers, or like carved and/or embossed marks (Col 9 lines 57-65).
Regarding claim 18, wherein the embossing pattern and/or the mould embossing pattern is configured as a logotype, a barcode, a QR code, or other identification code (Col 9 lines 57-65 Sakurai).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1 and 11 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Examiner maintains Larsson which is relied upon to teach the temperature and pressure ranges does in fact teach the cellulose fiber content range and at minimum the fiber content range is obvious in view of Larsson as explained in detail in the rejection above.
Conclusion
Applicant's The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See “Notice of References Cited”. Koltisko et al. (US 5938995 A), teach a fiber web was 95% virgin, bleached kraft wood pulp and 5% bicomponent (synthetic) fiber.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICHOLAS E IGBOKWE whose telephone number is (571)272-1124. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 a.m. - 5 p.m..
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, Anna Kinsaul can be reached at (571) 270-1926. 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.
/NICHOLAS E IGBOKWE/ Examiner, Art Unit 3731
/ANDREW M TECCO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3731
Prosecution Insights