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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Group 1, claims 1-10, in the reply filed on 29 June 2026 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Claims 11-13 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 29 June 2026.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, L4: contour corresponding to [[the]] a contour of the molded fiber product
Claim 1, L6-7: into the chamber, [[the]] a fiber material being distributed
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1, the term “consists mainly” used on L12-13 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
While the use of “consists” is normally considered closed-ended language, the fact that the “consists” claim language is further modified by “mainly” and that applicant’s specification does not further define what “consists mainly” encompasses, for purposes of examination, the language of “consists mainly” will be considered to be open-ended claim language.
As claims 2-10 are directly/indirectly dependent on claim 1, they stand as rejected for similar reasons.
Claim 2 recites the limitation where “the layers of the fiber material” on L9, however there are several instances of “layers of fiber material”, either “a first layer of fiber material” on L4 and/or “at least one further layer of fiber material” on L7 and it is unclear to what extent “the layers of the fiber material” on L9 cover.
Claim 7 recites the limitation “a molded fiber body” on L2. However, it is unclear how “a molded fiber body” differentiates from “a molded fiber product” as found on L1 of claim 1, on which claim 7 depends on.
As claims 8 both depends on claim 7 and similarly refers to “the molded fiber body” on L2, it is also rejected for similar reasons.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the press mold" and “the counter mold”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the molded fiber body". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-7 and 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Malmqvist (US20230332341) in view of Larsson et al. (SE541995) (of record).
Regarding claim 1, Malmqvist discloses a method for producing a molded fiber product, comprising:
arranging in a chamber ("forming heading" (110)) a suction mold ("air-permeable collector" (120) w/ "porous object" (125) or" 3d object" (127)) with a porous wall having a contour corresponding to a contour of the molded fiber product to be produced ([0098], [0122]);
introducing a fiber material-air mixture into the chamber, the fiber material being distributed in the air in the form of solid particles ([0059]-[0061]);
sucking the fiber material-air mixture through the porous wall of the suction mold and compacting the fiber material to form the molded fiber product on the porous wall ([0095]);
removing the molded fiber product from the suction mold and from the chamber ([0130]), wherein the fiber material consists mainly of cellulose fibers ([0059]-[0061]).
While Malmqvist does not explicitly disclose that the fiber material after removal is moist and/or has water in the form of droplets or water vapor in the fiber material-air mixture, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the earliest effective priority date of the instant application to do so, given that Larsson, which is within the cellulose product forming art, teaches that during the formation of a molded fiber product with a fiber material-air mixture (p.15 L24-p.16 L4), water can be added during the process (p.6 L6-10), in particular as a vapor (p.9 L12-16), for the benefit of improving the strength of the formed product (p.6 L6-10).
Regarding claim 2, modified Malmqvist teaches all limitations of claim 1 as set forth above. Additionally, given that Malmqvist teaches that the fiber product can be formed to have differing layers of densities ([0037]), that multiple stream inputs of natural fibers can be used ([0089]), and that a further layer of “nanofibrillar cellulose or lignocellulose” can be deposited ([0085]), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the earliest effective priority date for the method to further comprise steps where: a first fiber material-air mixture is introduced into the chamber and sucked in, so that a first layer of fiber material is formed on the porous wall of the suction mold; at least one further fiber material-air mixture is introduced into the chamber and sucked in, so that at least one further layer of fiber material is formed on the porous wall of the suction mold; and the layers of the fiber material are compacted to form the molded fiber product on the porous wall and the molded fiber product is removed from the suction mold for the predictable result of creating a fiber product with portions comprising different densities (see MPEP 2143(I)(A)).
Regarding claim 3, modified Malmqvist teaches all limitations of claim 1 as set forth above. Additionally, Malmqvist teaches that the porous wall of the suction mold has a three-dimensional contour with several wall sections ([0123], [0101], Fig 1, 7).
Regarding claim 5, modified Malmqvist teaches all limitations of claim 1 as set forth above. Additionally, Malmqvist teaches that an additive of starch could be added to fiber material/air mixture ([0085]), Larsson teaches that it would be obvious to use starch as an additive for the benefit of increasing the cellulose strength (p.7 L25-28) and Larsson also teaches that the cellulose product can further comprises of additives traditionally used forming paper products, including wax and water glass (sodium silicate, which can be considered a mineral) for the predictable result of controlling the features of the formed material (p.9 L26-p.10 L9).
Regarding claim 6, modified Malmqvist teaches all limitations of claim 5 as set forth above. Additionally, given that:
a) Malmqvist teaches that additives could be added and mixed in during the air-laying process ([0079]);
b) Malmqvist teaches that multiple discrete input streams for components of the mixture, including but not explicitly limited to the natural fibers and polymer binder ([0089]), can be utilized, with said discrete input streams being fed from undisclosed sources of material; and
c) the limited number of ways in which the different additives could be stored prior to being added to the mixture (either in separate storage containers, one mixed storage container and/or storage containers comprising various combinations of additives) presents a finite number of option that are immediately recognizable to a person having ordinary skill in the art, and the options do not produce new or unexpected results (see MPEP 2143(I)(E));
it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective priority date of the instant application for the additives to be stored in separate storage containers for the predictable result of enabling the creation of mixtures with varying composition of additives.
Regarding claim 7, modified Malmqvist teaches all limitations of claim 1 as set forth above. Additionally, Malmqvist teaches that after removal from the suction mold, a molded fiber body is transferred into a press mold ([0107], [0137] “female tool”) and a counter mold is pressed against the molded fiber body arranged in the press mold (“male tool” (30)).
Regarding claim 9, modified Malmqvist teaches all limitations of claim 1 as set forth above. Additionally, Malmqvist teaches that the suction mold ([0086]), a press mold and/or a counter mold are heated ([0107], [0111]).
Regarding claim 10, modified Malmqvist teaches all limitations of claim 1 as set forth above. Additionally, Malmqvist teaches that the molded fiber body is additionally coated with a coating solution ([0083], [0085] via “agar”, which is identified as a coating solution on p.12 L13-19 of applicant’s specification).
Claim(s) 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Malmqvist (US20230332341) and Larsson et al. (SE541995) (of record) as set forth above in the rejection of claim 1, and further in view of Kamite et al. (US5620642).
Regarding claim 4, Malmqvist teaches all limitations of claim 1 as set forth above. While Malmqvist teaches that fiber material is mixed with air ([0061]), Malmqvist does not explicitly teach that the fiber material is in the form of fiber dust or is distributed in the air as solid suspended particles as an aerosol. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the earliest effective priority date of the instant application to do so, given that Kamite, which is within the cellulose molding art, teaches that a cellulose material (such as wood) can be pulverized so as to form a fine dust (C3 L5-13) for the benefit of achieving a wooden-like product aesthetic while also having superior dimensional stability (C3 L61-67).
Claim(s) 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Malmqvist (US20230332341) and Larsson et al. (SE541995) (of record) as set forth above in the rejection of claim 7, and further in view of Nicolai et al. (US20170348921) (of record).
Regarding claim 8, modified Malmqvist teaches all limitations of claim 7 as set forth above. While Malmqvist does not explicitly teach that a transfer mold is used for the removal and/or transfer of the molded fiber body from the suction mold to the press mold, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the earliest effective priority date of the instant application to use a transfer mold, given that:
a) Malmqvist teaches the use of a device for the removal and/or transfer of the molded fiber body from the suction mold to the press mold ([0130] via “robot or other machine”);
b) Nicolai, which is within the fiber composite component manufacturing art, teaches that the transfer of a molded fiber body (“fiber preform”) to a press mold (“pressing mold” (11)) can be accomplished using a transfer mold (“removing tray” (7), [0065]); and
c) it has been held the simple substitution of one known element (Nicolai’s “removing tray” (7)) for another (Malmqvist’s “robot or other machine”) to obtain predictable results (the transfer a molded fiber body to a press mold) is well within the ability of a person of ordinary skill in the art to consider obvious (See MPEP 2143(I)(B)).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDER D BOOTH whose telephone number is (571)272-6704. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7:00-4:30.
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, Katelyn Smith can be reached at 571-270-5545. 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.
/ALEXANDER D BOOTH/Examiner, Art Unit 1749
/SEDEF E PAQUETTE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1749
Prosecution Insights