Detailed Action
The communications received 10/16/2025 have been filed and considered by the Examiner. Claims 1-14 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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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, 3, and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kiiskinen et al (US 2016/0221233) hereinafter KII.
As for claim 1, KII teaches a method for producing a pulp foam cushioning material [Abstract], the method comprising the steps of:
mixing and kneading a pulp feedstock (as mixing would involve at least some kneading) [0034; 0038], composed of shredded pieces of a pulp raw material, with water and a foaming agent to obtain a foamy substance;
filling a shaping mold with an amount of the foamy substance that is greater than a volume of the pulp foam cushioning material (as it is understood that it is compressed during dewatering so it will lose some volume to become the product) [Fig. 3A #21; Abstract; 0016; 0029; 0045; 0048];
compressing the filled foamy substance (via suction) [0068]; and
drying and dehydrating the foamy substance (dewatering and drying), wherein the shaping mold comprises a mold main body which is entirely composed of a breathable material (a water permeable wall) [0029; 0068]; and
in the drying step, the foamy substance is dried and dehydrated in a state where all surfaces of the foamy substance are surrounded by the mold main body (as the mold is understood to be closed during drying as performed in the example) [0091].
As for claim 3, KII teaches a shaping mold for a pulp foam cushioning material, the shaping mold [Abstract; Fig. 3A] configured to be filled with a foamy substance obtained by mixing and kneading a pulp feedstock, composed of shredded pieces of a pulp raw material, with water and a foaming agent, wherein the shaping mold comprises a mold main body which is entirely composed of a breathable material (water permeable material) [Fig. 3A #23-24; 0068]. The Examiner notes that the limitations pertaining to the foamy substance are the material worked upon by the device which does not differentiate the claims from the prior art [MPEP 2115].
As for claim 5, KII teaches claim 3 and wherein the mold main body is composed of a plurality of divided sub parts (the parts divided/shaped by the male part into sections around each side of the mold part and relative depth regions as depicted) [Fig. 2B #17; Fig. 3A #24 ; 0067-68].
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.
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) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KII as applied to claim 1 and further in view of Bulloch (US 3,942,926) hereinafter BUL.
As for claim 2, KII teaches claim 1 but does not teach the insertion of a mesh panel
BUL teaches that when molding cushioning products (mold pads) that between a filling step and a compressing step (as this happens after the foaming material is placed and before pressure is applied against the foaming material) [col. 9 l. 1-17], there a step of inserting a mesh panel between the shaping mold and the foamy substance in order to reinforce the foamy substance [Abstract; col. 6 l. 54-64].
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have added a mesh panel between a filling step and a compressing step of KII as BUL teaches that this can aid in reinforcing the foamy substance. As both KII and BUL pertain to foam molding they are analogous art and one of ordinary skill in the art expected success in the combination.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KII as applied to claim 1 and further in view of Sato et la (US 2003/0111201 A1) hereinafter SAT.
As for claim 4, KII teaches claim 3, wherein the mold main body which is a male mold is composed of a breathable material (the permeable walls) [0068]; and
the shaping mold comprises an external frame unit configured to hold a shape of the mold main body from outside the mold main body [Fig. 3A #21; 0068].
However KII does not teach that the mold main body is composed of a flexible material.
SAT teaches that when molding pulp products especially where breathable walls are required that the male mold can include an elastically deformable wall expandable that is breathable and via the pressing of the expansion aids in accelerating the dewatering of the pulp [Abstract; 0025; 0105; 0112; 0115].
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used the expandable elastically deformable breathable material of SAT as the breathable material of KII in order to improve the dewatering. As both KII and SAT pertain to molding of pulp products they are analogous art and one of ordinary skill in the art expects success in the combination.
Claim(s) 6-7 and 11-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KII as applied to claim 1 and further in view of Eto et al (US 2004/0045690 A1) hereinafter ETO.
As for claim 6, KII teaches claim 5 but does not teach the cross walls.
ETO teaches that in pulp molding [Abstract] that the mold can include a plurality of sub parts which comprises:
a cross-shaped (cross shaped as they cross over the mold) component including cross walls which divide a pulp foam cushioning material into four portions (each wall section is its own portion then add the cavity ) [Fig. 3(a-c) #11, 13, 15], wherein a through hole is formed at the center of the cross walls (where #16 enters) [Fig. 3(a-c) #16]; and
a columnar component (pressing member) [Fig. 3(a-c) #16; 0035] configured to be inserted into the through hole. This allows for the creation of a density distribution [0005-6] which allows for desirable lightness, strength, and heat-insulation properties required of the end product [0018].
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have added the sub parts of ETO to the mold of KII in order to allow for the creation of a density distribution which allows for desirable lightness, strength, and heat-insulation properties required of the end product. As both ETO and KII pertain to molding pulp products they are analogous art and one of ordinary skill in the art expects success in their combination.
As for claim 7, KII/ETO teach claim 6 and wherein the mold main body comprises:
an outer wall component (the combination of the rim and second lid component) [Fig. 3(a-c) #15 and 120; 0034] being longer than the cross-shaped component and configured to surround the cross-shaped component;
a first lid component configured to be inserted into a filling space surrounded by the outer wall component, and placed on the cross-shaped component [Fig. 3(a-c)]; and a second lid component [Fig. 3(a-c) #15] being thicker than the first lid component and
configured to be stacked on the first lid component [Fig. 3(a-c) #15];
“wherein after the filling space is filled with the foamy substance, the foamy substance is downwardly pushed in by the second lid component and the first lid component; and
after the foamy substance is pushed in, the second lid component is removed.” Are limitations that pertain to a method of using the device (as there is no structural component that causes the downward push) and a limitation pertaining to the material worked upon, both of which do not differentiate the claimed limitations from the device of the prior art [MPEP 2114-2115].
As for claim 11, this is substantially the resultant product of claim 1 taught by KII with the following additions: a core layer being a foamed layer (the inner portion of the resultant foamed product); and
a skin layer covering all surfaces of the core layer (the outermost surface of the resultant foamed product),
but it does not teach wherein a density of fibers in the skin layer is higher than a density of fibers in the core layer.
ETO teaches that the density and its distribution in a pulp molded product is a variable that is optimized to achieve the right combination of desired strength, lightness, and heat insulation properties of the pulp molded product and in the density distribution throughout [Abstract; 0018].
In accordance with the MPEP "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) [MPEP: 2144.05(II)(A)].
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have achieved the skin layer being higher than a density of the fibers of the core layer as this is a result effective variable which is optimized via routine experimentation. This is especially true as one of ordinary skill in the art may look to make a denser outer covering to prevent damage when being handled etc. which ETO teaches is achieved via higher density [0018].
As for claim 12, KII/ETO teach claim 11 and KII further teaches :
a bottom wall [Fig. 2A #12]; and
a plurality of side walls extending upward from the bottom wall [Fig. 2A #13] and separated from each other, wherein a central hole (cavity) is defined by the bottom wall and the plurality of side wall [0066]s;
the bottom wall comprises the core layer and the skin layer covering the core layer (as the skin layer is understood to be the outer most layer), while each of the plurality of side walls comprises the core layer and the skin layer covering the core layer (as the skin layer is understood to be the outermost layer); and
as it pertains to the limitation “the core layer in the side wall has a cushioning property superior to a cushioning property of the core layer in the bottom wall”, KII teaches that this cavity is used to handle the item to packed appropriately [0066]. Therefore it is understood that one of ordinary skill in the art in combination with the optimized density suggested by ETO would arrive to the conclusion that the cushioning property is similarly an aspect of the optimization of the density in conformance with the desired strength, heat insulation, and lightness properties as it pertains to the handling and packaging of an item in the cavity. Especially as one of ordinary skill in the art may wish to avoid the item falling through the bottom surface while getting sufficiently good impact protection from the side walls, they may consider making the bottom wall harder than the sides i.e. less cushioning.
As for claim 13, KII/ETO teach claim 12 and it is understood that as described in claim 11 that the density of the fibers throughout the product including the relative densities of different sections amount to a routine optimization of the density to achieve desired traits and therefore the density of the fibers in the core layer of the side wall being lower than a density of fibers in the core layer of the bottom wall is obvious.
As for claim 14, KII/ETO teach claim 13 and KII further teaches that the side wall is thicker than the bottom wall (as depicted the sidewalls lacking the male mole lowering of the depth would be thicker) [Fig. 3A #24 eats into the area that forms the cavity of Fig. 2A, sidewalls #13 are understood to include the entire depth of the molded product].
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KII as applied to claim 1 and further in view of Lin (US 6,343,926 B1) hereinafter LIN.
As for claim 9, KII teaches claim 4 but fails to teach a filling mechanism.
LIN teaches that one manner of filling a mold with a pulp material is by employing a filling mechanism [Abstract; Fig. 3] that comprises a sleeve (inlet pipe) configured to introduce the foamy substance into the mold [Fig. 3 #13], a piston configured to be inserted into the sleeve [Fig. 3 #16]; and in order for the filing mechanism to function and not leak and not impede flow or movement of the piston (especially as it is a pipe) it is understood to be made of a water impermeable material and has an inner wall surface that is smooth [col. 2 l. 20-36].
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KII in view of Eto et al (US 2004/0045690 A1) hereinafter ETO as applied to claim 7 and further in view of Bulloch (US 3,942,926) hereinafter BUL.
As for claim 10, KII/ETO teach claim 7 but fail to teach a mesh panel.
BUL teaches that when molding cushioning products (mold pads) that between a filling step and a compressing step (as this happens after the foaming material is placed and before pressure is applied against the foaming material) [col. 9 l. 1-17], there a step of inserting a mesh panel between the lid component and the foamy substance in order to reinforce the foamy substance [Abstract; col. 6 l. 54-64].
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have added a mesh panel between the lid components of KII/ETO (as one of the cross-shaped components is below the others) as BUL teaches that this can aid in reinforcing the foamy substance. As both KII/ETO and BUL pertain to foam molding they are analogous art and one of ordinary skill in the art expected success in the combination.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Elisa Vera whose telephone number is (571)270-7414. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 - 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, 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.
/E.V./Examiner, Art Unit 1748 /JACOB T MINSKEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1748
Prosecution Insights