DETAILED ACTION
The communication dated 1/15/2025 has been entered and fully considered. Claims 1-9 are pending.
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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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) 1-4 and 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by SATO (US 20030111201 A1).
For claim 1, SATO teaches a method and apparatus that creates a molded pulp container by vacuum [abstract and 0084]. SATO teaches the apparatus has a pulp tank reservoir to hold the pulp slurry [0043]. This teaches the limitation of “A pulp suction mold for a molded pulp forming machine, the molded pulp forming machine including a pulp tank for containing pulp”. SATO teaches the mold is immersed into the tank to collect the pulp slurry [0260]. This teaches a limitation of “said pulp suction mold being configured to slidably move in and out of the pulp tank and comprising:”. SATO teaches the mold has an upper and lower mold a lower mold creating a cavity where pulp collects/forms [Fig 3]. SATO teaches the upper mold has a cavity (element 11) above the molded piece [Fig 1]. SATO further teaches the upper mold has a fluid passage structure that retains air and vacuums air when applied [0076]. This teaches the limitation of “and an upper mold cooperating with said lower mold to define at least one mold cavity for receiving the pulp and at least one mold opening communicating said at least one mold cavity with the outside, said upper mold defining an upper air chamber located above said at least one mold cavity, and being formed with a plurality of upper passage holes communicating with said at least one mold cavity and said upper air chamber, and an upper connecting port communicating said upper air chamber with the outside and located adjacent to an end of said at least one mold cavity in an up-down direction, said upper connecting port being configured for suction airflow to suck the pulp in the pulp tank into said at least one mold cavity through said at least one mold opening and to suck air in said at least one mold cavity and liquid in the pulp into said upper air chamber through said upper passage holes and then discharge out of said upper air chamber through said upper connecting port”.
For claim 2, SATO teaches the pulp suction mold as claimed in claim 1, as above. SATO teaches the passages (ports) are vertical diagonal and horizontal [Fig 1]. This teaches the limitation of “wherein said upper connecting port extends in a horizontal direction transverse to the up-down direction”.
For claim 3, SATO teaches the pulp suction mold as claimed in claim 1, as above. SATO teaches the upper and lower molds have molding surfaces that come together to form a matching shape [0032]. This teaches the limitation of “wherein said lower mold has a lower mold surface, and said upper mold has an upper mold surface cooperating with said lower mold surface to define said at least one mold cavity and said at least one mold opening”.
For claim 4, SATO teaches the pulp suction mold as claimed in claim 3, as above. SATO teaches the air cavity at the center of the upper mold (element 11) has two heights from the bottom of the upper cavity to the central chamber and another distance to the outer top ring of the mold (that surrounds the central chamber) [Fig 2(b)]. The second distance (from the bottom of the top mold to the outer ring) is a smaller distance than the first (from the bottom of the top mold to the central chamber) [Fig 2(b)]. This teaches the limitation of “wherein said upper mold includes an upper distal to said at least one mold cavity, a lower wall opposite to said upper wall and having said upper mold surface, and a peripheral wall between said upper wall and said lower wall, wherein said upper wall, said lower wall and said peripheral wall cooperatively define said upper air chamber, said upper connecting port being formed in said peripheral wall, being spaced apart from said upper wall by a first distance, and being spaced apart from said lower wall by a second distance that is smaller than said first distance”.
For claim 6, SATO teaches the pulp suction mold as claimed in claim 4, as above. SATO teaches a rounded V-shape to the inner cavity cross section of the upper mold [Fig 1]. This teaches the limitation of “wherein said lower wall has a generally inverted V-shaped cross section”.
For claim 7, SATO teaches the pulp suction mold as claimed in claim 1, as above. SATO teaches the lower mold is made of a female mold suspended above the bottom wall of the bottom mold [Fig 4]. This teaches the limitation of “wherein said lower mold defines a lower air chamber located below said at least one mold cavity, and is formed with a plurality of lower passage holes communicating with said at least one mold cavity and said lower air chamber, and a lower connecting port located below said lower air chamber and communicating said lower air chamber with the outside”. SATO teaches the lower female mold has a blow-ports for exhausting air [0091 and Fig 4]. This teaches the limitation of “said lower connecting port being configured for suction airflow to suck the pulp in the pulp tank into said at least one mold cavity through said at least one mold opening and to suck the air in said at least one mold cavity and the liquid in the pulp into said lower air chamber through said lower passage holes and then discharge out of said lower air chamber through said lower connecting port”.
For claim 8, SATO teaches the pulp suction mold as claimed in claim 7, as above. SATO teaches the inner lower mold cavity is made of top and bottom walls [Fig 4]. This teaches the limitation of “wherein said lower mold includes an upper wall adjacent to said at least one mold cavity and having said lower mold surface, and a lower wall that is distal to said at least one mold cavity and that is opposite to and that cooperates with said upper wall of said lower mold to define said lower air chamber”.
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) 5 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SATO (US 20030111201 A1).
For claim 5, SATO teaches the pulp suction mold as claimed in claim 4, as above. SATO does not teach the dimensions of the mold. It would be obvious to try a shape that would result in a desirable shape for the product making the dimensions obvious for the user. See MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A). This teaches the limitation of “wherein a ratio between said first distance and said second distance ranges from 9:1 to 6:4”.
In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955) (Claims directed to a lumber package "of appreciable size and weight requiring handling by a lift truck" were held unpatentable over prior art lumber packages which could be lifted by hand because limitations relating to the size of the package were not sufficient to patentably distinguish over the prior art.); In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 189 USPQ 143 (CCPA 1976) ("mere scaling up of a prior art process capable of being scaled up, if such were the case, would not establish patentability in a claim to an old process so scaled." 531 F.2d at 1053, 189 USPQ at 148.).
In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.
For claim 9, SATO teaches the pulp suction mold as claimed in claim 8, as above. SATO teaches the lower mold is not tapered. . It would be obvious to try a shape that would result in a desirable shape for the product making the dimensions obvious for the user. See MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A). This teaches the limitation of “wherein said lower wall has a generally V-shaped cross section”.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEPHEN M RUSSELL whose telephone number is (571)272-6907. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri: 7:30 to 4:30 EST.
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 (571) 270-7457. 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.
/S.M.R./Examiner, Art Unit 1748 /JACOB T MINSKEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1748
Prosecution Insights