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
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I in the reply filed on 6/23/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the claims have been amended to render the restriction moot. This has found to be persuasive.
The restriction mailed on 4/292026 is withdrawn due to the amended claims.
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) 1-18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Celwise, WO 2020/141209 (already of record) in view of Kiss USP 4,378,265.
Regarding claim 1, Celwise teaches a method for forming products from a fibrous material (see abstract), having at least the following steps:
- providing a preform made of a fibrous material (see claim 1 and pulp slurry of page 25 line 13), wherein the preform has a moisture content of not more than 75% by weight (page 25 lines 13-15);
- first pressing of the preform with simultaneous heat input in a first pressing device (first pressing step on the pulp slurry, see figures and page 25 lines 13-15); and
- at least one second pressing of the preform previously pre-pressed in the first pressing device with simultaneous heat input in a second pressing device (second pressing step page 25 lines 16-19) wherein;
- a first temperature introduced during the first pressing in the first pressing device and a second temperature introduced during the at least one second pressing in the second pressing device are different (description given in pages 8-10, the third forming step has a different temperature range than the first and second forming steps).
Celwise teaches that the portions of the mold and transfer components that act as a male and female style mod are heated to different temperatures as well. While there is not an explicit teaching of modifying the temperature in each pressing stages, there is an explicit teaching of increasing the pressure applied in each sequential press and a showing of acceptable temperatures with different ranges in each. This is sufficient for an implicit teaching of the temperatures being different as the ranges are different for each step.
To explicitly address that the act of modifying the temperature of the tools is known in the art, Kiss is provided. In the same field of endeavor of making moldable pulp products, Kiss teaches modifying the temperature of the process tools for the benefit of controlling the properties you wish to be modified. Kiss teaching modifying the temperature to quicken the heating time for drying and also for reducing the temperature for the benefit of avoiding sticking or controlling surface properties in a known and conventional manner (see column 6 lines 34-53).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to utilize the different temperature presses for the known benefits of reducing the tame needed in the drying presses (similar to the increase in pressure of each stage as taught by Celwise) or for transfer and surface property control as taught by Kiss.
Regarding claims 2-3, Kiss remains as applied above and teaches the benefits of the secondary press tools being both a higher and lower temperature than the first press tool (see column 6).
Regarding claims 4-7, Celwise remains as applied above and teaches the same temperature ranges known to be useful in the drying press mold steps. The ranges of a press tool of 100-150C (page 21) and 100-300 are taught alongside temperate ranges of 200-280 and 240-280 (see page 20 and 24). These same claimed ranges paired with the teachings of Kiss about modifying the ranges for known benefits would have been obvious to the average artisan.
Regarding claim 8 Celwise further teaches that during the first pressing, the moisture content of the preform is reduced to 30 to 50% by weight (46-65% page 21 line 11).
Regarding claim 9 Celwise further teaches wherein during the at least one second pressing, the moisture content of the preform is reduced to 1 to 30% by weight (25-40% page 23 line 14).
Regarding claims 10-14 Celwise further teaches the act of additionally performing spraying, coating, or adding of decors and the like to the surface of the product during or between pressing actions (see page 15).
Regarding claims 15-17, Celwise further teaches a first pressing that is designed to form the preform prior to a second pressing and third pressing to dewater and provide a final shape to the product (see claims and pages 19-24). The first pressing as termed by Celwise would read on the term “pre-pressing” as defined in the instant claims as part of a hot-pressing action by the tools.
Regarding claim 18 Celwise further teaches that functional and/or designed regions are reinforced during the at least one second pressing (through implicit teaching of the actions of solidifying the pulp into the desired end product.
Regarding claim 20 Celwise further teaches wherein:
- the first pressing device includes first pressing tools; and
- the second pressing device includes second pressing tools (see figures with multiple press sets described in pages 19-24).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Celwise, WO 2020/141209 (already of record) in view of Kiss USP 4,378,265 and in further view of Klein et al, US Patent Publication 2023/0256508.
Regarding claim 19, Celwise and Kiss teach the act of shaping the product over multiple press molds, but is silent on the act of punching through the web.
In the act of solving the same problem of shaping a product through hot pressing, Klein teaches a method of adding a punch to a hot-pressing action that includes multiple set of press punches included with the hot presses to form two different sized or shaped lunch outs for the hot pressed final product.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to utilize the teachings of Kline for having multiple different press punches used in conjunction with hot pressing apparatus for the benefit of producing a final product with the desired shaped holes or openings in the product.
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