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 Status
This Office action is in response to the Request for Continued Examination filed 8/6/2026. Claims 1-7, 9-16, and 18 are currently pending. Claims 1, 12, 16, and 18 have been amended. The cancelation of claim 17 is acknowledged. Claim 8 has been previously canceled.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 8/6/2026 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-7, 9-16, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 1, the limitation “the initial paperboard packing material is a finished and manufactured solid bleach sulfate paperboard material” (emphasis added) comprises new matter not previously disclosed by the specification as originally filed. Applicant has simply disclosed a paperboard packing material that is a solid bleach sulfate paperboard material. Applicant has not disclosed that it is finished and manufactured. Claim 16 is rejected for also including a paperboard packaging material that is “finished and manufactured.” 2-7, 9-15, and 18 are rejected for depending from either claim 1 or 16.
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.
Claims 1-5, 7, 9-11, 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ruger (WO 2025/103563 A1) in view of Wnek (US 2019/0091957 A1) and Pietikainen (US 2006/0051516 A1). Note that for convenience, any citations to the written description of Ruger refer to the attached translation.
Regarding claim 1, Ruger discloses a method of press-forming a construct, the method comprising: obtaining a forming tool (100b – Fig. 3a; note that further citations will refer to the embodiment of Fig. 3a) comprising at least a punch (140 – Fig. 3a) and a cavity part (122a – Fig. 3a), wherein the cavity part at least partially defines a cavity (124 – Fig. 3a) and comprises a plurality of ports (154a – Fig. 3a) in fluid communication with the cavity (pg. 16, second full paragraph and see Fig. 3a where the 154a is clearly in communication with 124); positioning a moisturized paperboard packaging material (1 – Fig. 6a and pg. 3, last full paragraph) between the punch and the cavity (see Fig. 6a where 1 is disposed between 120 and 140); press-forming the moisturized paperboard packaging material into the construct by moving the punch and the cavity part together (pg. 17, lines 38-39) so that the punch is at least partially received in the cavity (see Fig. 6d where the lower section of 140 is disposed in 124) with the moisturized paperboard packaging material pressed therebetween (see Fig. 6d where 1 is clearly pressed since the shape is deformed between 120 and 140); and removing moisturizing fluid in the cavity released by the moisturized paperboard packaging material during press-forming via the plurality of ports in the cavity part (pg. 16, first full paragraph; pg. 16, lines 1-3 of the second full paragraph; and pg. 18, fourth full paragraph).
However, Ruger does not expressly disclose what kind of paperboard packaging is being used.
Wnek teaches a similar method of press-forming a construct comprising press-forming a paperboard packaging material by moving a punch (154 – Fig. 8) and cavity (152 – Fig. 8) part together, the method comprising the step of obtaining an initial paperboard packing material, the initial paperboard packing material is a finished and manufactured solid bleach sulfate paperboard material (para. 0040; since the paperboard is commercially available, it is interpreted to be finished and manufactured). One of ordinary skill in the art, upon reading the teaching of Wnek, would have recognized that the paperboard packaging material of Wnek is analogous to the paperboard packaging material of Ruger since they are both pressed between a punch and a cavity part to obtain a pressware.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention, to have used a solid bleached sulfate paperboard as taught by Wnek as the paperboard packaging material in the invention of Ruger since the paperboard packaging material of Wnek is analogous to the paperboard packaging material of Ruger and can be substituted into the method of Ruger without materially changing the method as the paperboard packaging material of Wnek is capable of being press-formed.
However, Ruger, as modified by Wnek, does not disclose how the paperboard packaging material is moisturized.
Pietikainen discloses a method comprising the steps of feeding an initial paperboard packaging material (1 – Fig. 1) to a treatment station (at 2 – Fig. 1) and moisturizing the initial paperboard packaging material to form a moisturized paperboard packaging material by applying a moisturizing liquid to the initial paperboard packaging material (para. 0027). One of ordinary skill in the art, upon reading the teaching of Pietikainen, would have recognized that the steps of moisturizing a paperboard packaging material as taught by Pietikainen can be used to moisturize the paperboard packaging material of Ruger.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention, to have modified the method of Ruger to include the step of moisturizing as taught by Pietikainen since Ruger does not disclose how the paperboard packaging material is moisturized and Pietikainen teaches a known solution.
Ruger, as modified by Wnek and Pietikanen, further discloses (citations are to Ruger unless otherwise noted):
Claim 2, the forming tool further comprises a bottom assembly (120 – Fig. 3a), the bottom assembly comprises the cavity part (122a – Fig. 3a) and a bottom mounting plate (122b – Fig. 3a), wherein the bottom mounting plate comprises one or more output passageways (156 – Fig. 3a) that are in fluid communication with one or more of the ports (154a – Fig. 3a) of the plurality of ports (pg. 16, first 3 lines of the second full paragraph), and wherein the removing the moisturizing fluid comprises moving the moisturizing fluid through the one or more output passageways away from the cavity part (pg. 16, first 5 lines of the second full paragraph).
Claim 3, the cavity part (122a – Fig. 3a) defines a bottom recess (at the bottom of 122c – Fig. 3a there are two openings interpreted to be recesses) extending along the bottom mounting plate (122b – Fig. 3a), the bottom recess being in fluid communication with the ports (154a – Fig. 3a) of the plurality of ports (pg. 16, first full paragraph).
Claim 4, the bottom recess (at the bottom of 122c – Fig. 3a there are two openings interpreted to be recesses) of the cavity part (122a – Fig. 3a) is in fluid communication with the one or more output passageways (156 – Fig. 3a) via a plurality of openings (154 – Fig. 3a) in the bottom mounting plate (see Fig. 3a).
Claim 5, the moisturized paperboard packaging material includes more than 10% by weight of a moisturizing liquid prior to the press-forming the moisturized paperboard packaging material (pg. 3, last full paragraph).
Claim 7, the moisturized paperboard packaging material (1 – Fig. 6a) is uncoated (pg. 3 discusses the material and is disclosed as a layer, since there is only one layer, it is interpreted to be uncoated), the punch (140 – Fig. 3a) comprises a plurality of top ports (152 – Fig. 3a; pg. 14 first full paragraph; pg. 15, last full paragraph), and the removing moisturizing fluid in the cavity (124 – Fig. 3a) further comprises removing moisturizing fluid via the plurality of top ports in the punch (pg. 18, fourth full paragraph).
Claim 16, a system for press-forming a construct, the system comprising: a treatment station (2 – Fig. 1, Pietikainen) for moisturizing an initial paperboard packaging material (1 – Fig. 6a), the initial paperboard packaging material is a finished and manufactured solid bleached sulfate paperboard material (para. 0040, Wnek; since the paperboard is commercially available, it is interpreted to be finished and manufactured), the treatment station is for forming a moisturized paperboard packaging material by adding a moisturizing liquid to the initial paperboard packaging material (para. 0027, Pietikainen); and a forming tool (100b – Fig. 3a) comprising at least a punch (140 – Fig. 3a) and a cavity (122a – Fig. 3a) part, wherein the cavity part at least partially defines a cavity (124 – Fig. 3a) and comprises a plurality of ports (154a – Fig. 3a) in fluid communication with the cavity (pg. 16, second full paragraph and see Fig. 3a where the 154a is clearly in communication with 124), wherein the punch is for being at least partially received in the cavity for press-forming the moisturized paperboard packaging material into the construct between the punch and an interior surface of the cavity (see Fig. 3a), and wherein the plurality of ports (154a – Fig. 3a) are for removing moisturizing fluid in the cavity released by the moisturized paperboard packaging material during press-forming (pg. 16, first full paragraph; pg. 16, lines 1-3 of the second full paragraph; and pg. 18, fourth full paragraph).
Claim 9, the forming tool further comprises a bottom assembly (120 – Fig. 3a), the bottom assembly comprises the cavity part (122a – Fig. 3a) and a bottom mounting plate (122b – Fig. 3a), the bottom mounting plate comprises one or more output passageways (156 – Fig. 3a) that are in fluid communication with one or more of the ports (154a – Fig. 3a) of the plurality of ports (pg. 16, first 3 lines of the second full paragraph), and the one or more output passageways are for further removing moisturizing fluid away from the cavity part (pg. 16, first 5 lines of the second full paragraph).
Claim 10, the cavity part (122a – Fig. 3a) defines a bottom recess (at the bottom of 122c – Fig. 3a there are two openings interpreted to be recesses) extending along the bottom mounting plate (122b – Fig. 3a), the bottom recess being in fluid communication with the ports (154a – Fig. 3a) of the plurality of ports (pg. 16, first full paragraph).
Claim 11, the bottom recess (at the bottom of 122c – Fig. 3a there are two openings interpreted to be recesses) of the cavity part (122a – Fig. 3a) is in fluid communication with the one or more output passageways (156 – Fig. 3a) via a plurality of openings (154 – Fig. 3a) in the bottom mounting plate (see Fig. 3a).
Claim 14, the moisturized paperboard packaging material (1 – Fig. 6a) is uncoated (pg. 3 discusses the material and is disclosed as a layer, since there is only one layer, it is interpreted to be uncoated), and the punch (140 – Fig. 3a) comprises a plurality of top ports (152 – Fig. 3a; pg. 14 first full paragraph; pg. 15, last full paragraph) for removing moisturizing fluid in the cavity (124 – Fig. 3a) released by the moisturized paperboard packaging material during press-forming (pg. 18, fourth full paragraph).
Claim 15, the cavity part (122a – Fig. 3a) comprises a pocket (the depression formed in 122a – Fig. 3a) and an insert (122c – Fig. 3a is interpreted to be an insert since it can be removed with the entirety of 122a) is at least partially received in the pocket (see Fig. 3a, 122c is partially disposed in the pocket of 122a), and wherein the cavity extends along at least a portion of the insert when the insert is at least partially received in the pocket (see Fig. 3a).
Claims 12 and 18, essentially all of the elements of the claimed invention in claims 16 and 1 respectively.
However, Ruger, as modified by Wnek and Pietikainen, does not disclose that the moisturized paperboard packaging material includes between 10% and 40% by weight of a moisturizing liquid prior to press-forming the moisturized paperboard packaging material.
In this case, it is noted that the amount of water by weight of the moisturizing liquid is a result-effective variable since it impacts the molding temperature and forming pressure (pg. 11, third full paragraph, Ruger). Furthermore, it is noted that the combination of Ruger, Wnek, and Pietikainen teach the general conditions of the claim.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention, to contrive any number of desirable ranges for the weight percent of moisturizing liquid in the paperboard packaging material, including the range 10% to 40%, 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 Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). Note that it is acknowledged that Ruger discloses a moisture content of 50% to 85% by weight. However, this rejection is based on the combination of Ruger, Wnek, and Pietikainen, which has paperboard packaging material comprising solid bleached sulfate paperboard which would allow for the above range of 10% to 40% by weight.
Claims 6 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ruger (Wo 2025/103563 A1) in view of Wnek (US 2019/0091957 A1), Pietikainen (US 2006/0051516 A1), and Shen (CN 201292485 Y).
Regarding claim 6, Ruger discloses essentially all of the elements of the claimed invention in claim 6 and further discloses the forming tool further comprises a top assembly (the assembly of 140 and 180 – Fig. 3a) comprising the punch (140 – Fig. 3a) and the moisturized paperboard packaging material comprises a barrier layer facing the punch (the upper half of 1 – Fig. 6a is interpreted to be the claimed barrier layer since a layer is simply a thickness of material and the material is capable of providing resistance to items impinging it).
However, Ruger does not disclose that the top assembly is free from exhaust features.
Shen discloses a similar forming tool (the assembly of 1 and 2 – Fig. 1) comprising a top assembly (2 – Fig. 1) comprising a punch (22 – Fig. 1), wherein the top assembly is free from exhaust features (see Fig. 1, there are only exhaust features 12 in 1). One of ordinary skill in the art, upon reading the teaching of Shen, would have recognized that modifying Ruger such that the top assembly is free from exhaust features as taught by Shen would not impact the intended operation of the forming tool.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention, to have modified the top assembly of Ruger to be free of exhaust features as taught by Shen. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to simplify construction of the top assembly and reduce construction time and costs.
Assuming that applicant argues that the packaging material of Ruger does not contain a barrier layer, it is noted that the examiner took Official Notice in the Office action dated 1/5/2026 that providing a barrier layer on a packaging material intended for pressware is old and well-known in the art and since applicant has not challenged to Office Notice in the response dated 3/31/2026, the Official Notice has become applicant admitted prior art.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention, to have modified the moisturized paperboard packaging material to comprise a barrier layer. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to improve the ability of final pressware products to prevent leaks.
Regarding claim 13, this claim is materially the same as claim 6 and is rejected in the same manner. It is further noted though that the moisturized paperboard packaging material of claim 13 is not a part of the claimed invention. Hence, regardless of whether Ruger discloses a barrier layer, the forming tool of Ruger is fully capable of being used with a moisturized paperboard packaging material having a barrier layer.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 8/6/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding claims 1 and 16, applicant argues that neither Ruger nor Pietikainen discloses obtaining an initial finished and manufactured solid bleach sulfate paperboard packaging material.
However, neither Ruger nor Pietikainen are relied upon for the teaching of finished and manufactured solid bleach sulfate paperboard packaging material. Wnek is relied upon for this teaching. Therefore, applicant’s argument is found to be not persuasive.
Regarding claims 1 and 16, applicant further argues that the method of Pietikainen is not applicable to a finished and manufactured paperboard since the moisturizing step of Pietikainen is one step of manufacturing a paperboard.
In response, it is noted that Pietikainen teaches a step of moisturizing a paperboard. The web is already formed when it enters the treatment station. Therefore, it would be applicable to any web including a finished and manufactured paperboard. Therefore, applicant’s argument is found to be not persuasive.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Ferrero (US 5775060) discloses a press (4 – Fig. 4) and anvil (5 – Fig. 4) comprising ducts (6, 7 – Fig. 4) for discharging trapped air.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THOMAS M WITTENSCHLAEGER whose telephone number is (571)272-7012. The examiner can normally be reached MON-FRI: 9:00-5:00.
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, Shelley 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.
/THOMAS M WITTENSCHLAEGER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3731
8/21/2026
Prosecution Insights