DETAILED ACTION
The communication dated 3/6/2026 has been entered and fully considered.
Claims 4-7, 11-13 and 15 are cancelled. Claim 2 has been withdrawn from further consideration. Claims 1-3, 8-10, 14 and 16-18 are pending.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendments and Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/6/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant argues that the blowing agent concentration in Example 2 is considerably lower than in Example 1. In contrast, claim 1 recites that the blowing agent that the blowing agent concentration in the first dose is substantially the same as the blowing agent concentration in the second dose, thus the combination of PIERICK in view of KIM fails to teach the third limitation.
The Examiner would like to clarify for the record that the blowing agent concentration is “substantially the same” is being interpreted to be less than about 5% on page 6 in the Applicant’s specification. The Examiner agrees that KIM does not explicitly teach the blowing agent concentration is less than about 5% between the first dose and the second dose; however, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to test the effectiveness of using the method as taught by KIM to provide a first and second dose which have substantially the same blowing agent concentrations, such as a blowing concentration of 0.25% [0104] and a blowing concentration of 0.26%, by modifying and optimizing the amount of blowing agent provided during the dosages for the first and second molding cycles, by routine experimentation in the absence of a showing of criticality. See In re Woodruff, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify and optimize the percentage of the blowing agent concentration for the purpose of providing a mass of the second dose which is preselected and controlled to have a different mass than the first dose, in order to product high quality products with additional settings and system configurations that are stable [0104] and products that have a lower density cellular structure [103; 105].
The Applicant argues that BINDER is nonanalogous art as it is not focused on injection molding and is therefore nonanalogous to PIERICK or KIM.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. In response to applicant's argument that BINDER is nonanalogous art, it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, BINDER is in the same field of endeavor as the Applicant’s as its in regards to the limitation of the article.
The Applicant argues that there is no reasonable expectation of success in producing the low density foams.
The argument is not commensurate in scope with the claims. Additionally, in response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., low density foams) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
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 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.
Claims 1, 3, 8-10, 14, 16 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pierick et al. (U.S. PGPUB 2004/0262813), hereinafter PIERICK, in view of KIM (U.S. PGPUB 2007/0141188), hereinafter KIM, and Binder et al. (U.S. 5,045,085), hereinafter BINDER.
Regarding claim 1, PIERICK teaches: A method (PIERICK teaches a method [Abstract]) comprising: plasticating polymeric material present in the extruder in an extruder in a plastication period of a first molding cycle (PIERICK teaches an extruder (12) of molding system (10) includes a polymer processing screw (14) that is rotatable within a barrel (16) to convey polymeric material in a downstream direction (18) [0026].); introducing a blowing agent of a first dose into the polymeric material present in the extruder during the plastication period of the first molding cycle (PIERICK teaches the system includes a supercritical fluid additive introduction system (21) for introducing the supercritical fluid additive into the polymeric material thereby forming a mixture of polymeric material and supercritical fluid additive in polymer processing space [0026]. PIERICK teaches the supercritical fluid additive may function as a physical blowing agent [0047]. PIERICK teaches the polymeric material in the barrel (16) is generally in a fluid state at the point of supercritical fluid additive introduction [0027]. PIERICK teaches the flow of supercritical fluid additive into the polymeric material may be metered, for example, by a metering device (39) positioned between source (22) and port (24) [0027; Figs. 1A-1C]); accumulating a first shot comprising the blowing agent and the polymeric material present in the extruder during the plastication period of the first molding cycle (PIERICK teaches the mixture of polymeric material and supercritical fluid additive is conveyed downstream by the rotating screw and accumulated in a region (38) within the barrel downstream of the screw [Fig. 1B; 0027].); injecting the first shot into a first mold during an injection period of the first molding cycle to form a first polymeric foam article (PIERICK teaches when the screw no longer plasticates polymeric material the introduction of supercritical fluid additive into the polymeric material is, or has been, stopped, for example, by the operation of an injector valve (40) associated with port (24) [0027]. PIERICK teaches the screw is moved axially in a downstream direction by an injection device (42) to downstream end (32) of the barrel, returning to the screw position in Fig. 1A, to inject the accumulated charge of the mixture through outlet (26) of the extruder and into the cavity (44) defined between mold halves (46a, 46b) via a passageway (47) [0028]. A shut-off nozzle valve (45) associated with the outlet of the extruder typically is opened to permit the mixture to flow into the cavity [0028; Figs. 1A-1C]); plasticating polymeric material in an extruder during a plastication period of a second molding cycle (PIERICK teaches the molding cycle is repeated to produce additional molded articles, so this additional molding cycle is interpreted to be the “second molding cycle” [Figs. 1A; 0028]); introducing the blowing agent of a second dose into the polymeric material present in the extruder during a plastication period of the second molding cycle (PIERICK teaches the system includes a supercritical fluid additive introduction system (21) for introducing the supercritical fluid additive into the polymeric material thereby forming a mixture of polymeric material and supercritical fluid additive in polymer processing space [0026]. PIERICK teaches the supercritical fluid additive may function as a physical blowing agent [0047]. PIERICK teaches the polymeric material in the barrel (16) is generally in a fluid state at the point of supercritical fluid additive introduction [0027]. PIERICK teaches the flow of supercritical fluid additive into the polymeric material may be metered, for example, by a metering device (39) positioned between source (22) and port (24) [0027; Figs. 1A-1C]), wherein a mass of the second dose is pre-selected and controlled to have a different mass than the first dose by at least 10% (PIERICK teaches the system (10) includes a control system (25) that includes a control system (25) that is capable of controlling the injection molding process and/or supercritical fluid additive introduction into the polymeric material [0026]. The supercritical fluid additive introduction rate may be coupled, for example by the control system, to the flow rate of polymeric material to produce a mixture having the desired weight percentage [0030].); accumulating a second shot comprising the blowing agent and the polymeric material present in the extruder during the plastication period of the second molding cycle (PIERICK teaches the mixture of polymeric material and supercritical fluid additive is conveyed downstream by the rotating screw and accumulated in a region (38) within the barrel downstream of the screw [Fig. 1B; 0027].); injecting the second shot into a second mold during an injection period of the second molding cycle to form a second polymeric foam article (PIERICK teaches when the screw no longer plasticates polymeric material the introduction of supercritical fluid additive into the polymeric material is, or has been, stopped, for example, by the operation of an injector valve (40) associated with port (24) [0027]. PIERICK teaches the screw is moved axially in a downstream direction by an injection device (42) to downstream end (32) of the barrel, returning to the screw position in Fig. 1A, to inject the accumulated charge of the mixture through outlet (26) of the extruder and into the cavity (44) defined between mold halves (46a, 46b) via a passageway (47) [0028]. A shut-off nozzle valve (45) associated with the outlet of the extruder typically is opened to permit the mixture to flow into the cavity [0028; Figs. 1A-1C]); . . . .
PIERICK does not explicitly teach wherein a mass of the second dose is preselected and controlled to have a different mass than the first dose by at least 5%. However, PIERICK teaches a system that includes a supercritical fluid additive introduction system for introducing the supercritical fluid additive into the polymeric material and the flow rate of supercritical fluid additive into the polymeric material may be metered by a metering device and controlled by a control system [0026-0027]. Additionally, PIERICK teaches that the desired amount of the supercritical fluid additive is introduced to the polymeric material to form a mixture having a desired weight percentage of supercritical fluid additive [0030]. The instant specification also teaches that the desired condition, e.g., mass of supercritical fluid additive, may be selected by the operator at the beginning of the process, or may be permanently programmed into the control system [pg. 5, para 3]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to test the effectiveness of using the method as taught by PIERICK to provide a first and second dose which have substantially different blowing agent masses, by modifying and optimizing the amount of blowing agent provided during the dosages for the first and second molding cycles, by routine experimentation in the absence of a showing of criticality. See In re Woodruff, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify and optimize the percentage of the supercritical fluid additive for the purpose of providing a mass of the second dose which is preselected and controlled to have a different mass than the first dose, in order to advantageously provide a method which may provide two separate foam articles which have substantially different mass and density properties.
Furthermore, PIERICK teaches: wherein the blowing agent concentration in the first dose is substantially the same as the blowing agent concentration in the second dose (PIERICK teaches the system (10) includes a control system (25) that includes a control system (25) that is capable of controlling the injection molding process and/or supercritical fluid additive introduction into the polymeric material [0026]. The supercritical fluid additive introduction rate may be coupled, for example by the control system, to the flow rate of polymeric material to produce a mixture having the desired weight percentage. The desired condition, e.g., mass of supercritical fluid additive, and offset value may depend upon the particular process. The desired condition and/or offset value may be selected by the operator at the beginning of the process, or may be permanently programmed into the control system. The instant specification teaches the mass of blowing agent in a dose is selected to provide a desired blowing agent concentration of the blowing agent in the polymeric material [pg. 6]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to test the effectiveness of using the method as taught by PIERICK to provide a first and second dose which have substantially the same blowing agent concentrations, by modifying and optimizing the amount of blowing agent provided during the second molding cycle, by routine experimentation, thus providing a mass of the second does which is preselected and controlled to have a similar mass than the first dose, in order to create two different foam articles with substantially different properties such as mass and density properties.
If the Applicant remains unconvinced that PIERICK teaches: wherein a mass of the second dose is pre-selected and controlled to have a different mass than the first dose by at least 5%, in the alternative, in the same field of endeavor, injection molding, KIM teaches the amount of the blowing agent can be controlled to create a shot having the desired weight percentage of blowing agent and the amount of the blowing agent may be controlled by controlling the dose size [0032; 0035]. KIM teaches a control system (29) may control the total amount of the blowing agent introduced into a shot or the size of the dose [0059]. The control system may also receive manual inputs of the desired blowing agent percentage in the mixture of polymer and blowing agent and/or the desired dose size and/or the desired shot size [0059]. KIM teaches several cycles that have different doses of the blowing agent (nitrogen) that is being used to make molded products [0102-0104]. KIM teaches that the second dose is pre-selected as its considered a setting [0103]. KIM teaches in an example in a first molding cycle that a dose of 9.3 mg of nitrogen is used. KIM then teaches in a second molding cycle that a dose of 13 mg of nitrogen is used [0103]. KIM teaches the second dose (13 mg) is controlled to have a different mass than the first dose (9.3 mg) by at least 10% (10% of 9.3 mg = 0.93 mg, therefore, the second dose must be at least 10.23 mg to be 10% more, which 13 mg meets the limitation) [0102-0103]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to modify PIERICK, by having a higher second dose, as suggested by KIM, in order to have a lower density cellular structure [103; 105].
PIERICK does not explicitly teach: wherein the first shot has a mass that is different than a mass of the second shot, wherein the first polymeric foam article has a different mass than the second polymeric foam article, wherein the first polymeric foam article has substantially the same void volume as the second polymeric foam article, and wherein the blowing agent concentration in the first dose is substantially the same as the blowing agent concentration in the second dose.
In the same field of endeavor, injection molding, KIM also teaches that in a first cycle, the calculated dose of nitrogen was 6 mg, using a dosage of 0.375% per 1.6 g of plastic weight, and in another cycle, the calculated amount of nitrogen delivered was approximately 3.8 mg with the same system parameters [0091; 0094], indicating the polymer weight was not changed, but the dose masses were changed and the mass of the foam articles would be different if the only parameter that changed was the nitrogen dose mass. KIM also teaches in embodiments that multiple products can be used using the same dosage in multiple cycles [0102]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to modify PIERICK, by having the foam article a different mass and the mass of the dosage shots, as suggested by KIM, in order to have a lower density cellular structure [103; 105].
Furthermore, KIM does not explicitly teach the blowing agent concentration is less than about 5% between the first dose and the second dose which is being interpreted as “substantially the same”; however, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to test the effectiveness of using the method as taught by KIM to provide a first and second dose which have substantially the same blowing agent concentrations, such as a blowing concentration of 0.25% [0104] and a blowing concentration of 0.26%, by modifying and optimizing the amount of blowing agent provided during the dosages for the first and second molding cycles, by routine experimentation in the absence of a showing of criticality. See In re Woodruff, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify and optimize the percentage of the blowing agent concentration for the purpose of providing a mass of the second dose which is preselected and controlled to have a different mass than the first dose, in order to product high quality products with additional settings and system configurations that are stable [0104] and products that have a lower density cellular structure [103; 105].
PIERICK and KIM are silent as to: wherein the first polymeric foam article has substantially the same void volume as the second polymeric foam article. In the same field of endeavor, foam articles, BINDER teaches that all the various materials have pore volumes well in excess of 90% [Col. 14, lines 7-11]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to modify PIERICK and KIM, by having the products have the same void volume, as suggested by BINDER, in order to have a product that does not occupy too much of the total volume [Col. 14, lines 7-11].
Regarding claim 3, PIERICK teaches: wherein the blowing agent comprises carbon dioxide and/or nitrogen (PIERICK teaches the supercritical fluid additive may have a variety of compositions including nitrogen and carbon dioxide [0048].).
Regarding claim 8, KIM further teaches: wherein the first polymeric foam article and the second polymeric foam article have an average cell size of less than 100 micron (KIM teaches the cycles can produce a first article and a second article with cell size of less than 100 microns [0102-0105]).
Regarding claim 9, KIM further teaches: wherein the second dose has a different mass than the first dose by at least 10% (KIM teaches the first dose is 9.3 mg of nitrogen and the second dose is 13 mg of nitrogen, which is at least 10% more than the first dose [0102-0105]).
Regarding claim 10, KIM further teaches: wherein the second dose has a different mass than the first dose by at least 20% (KIM teaches the first dose is 9.3 mg of nitrogen and the second dose is 13 mg of nitrogen, which is at least 20% more than the first dose [0102-0105]).
Regarding claim 14, KIM further teaches: wherein the blowing agent concentration in the first dose and the second dose is less than l % (KIM teaches the blowing agent introduced into the polymeric material in both all cycles are less than 1% [0102-0105]).
Regarding claim 16, PIERICK teaches: further comprising programming the mass of the first shot and the mass of the second shot into a control system of a blowing agent introduction system (PIERICK teaches the system (10) includes a control system (25) that includes a control system (25) that is capable of controlling the injection molding process and/or supercritical fluid additive introduction into the polymeric material [0026]. The supercritical fluid additive introduction rate may be coupled, for example by the control system, to the flow rate of polymeric material to produce a mixture having the desired weight percentage. The desired condition, e.g., mass of supercritical fluid additive, and offset value may depend upon the particular process. The desired condition and/or offset value may be selected by the operator at the beginning of the process, or may be permanently programmed into the control system. The instant specification teaches the mass of blowing agent in a dose is selected to provide a desired blowing agent concentration of the blowing agent in the polymeric material [pg. 6]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to test the effectiveness of using the method as taught by PIERICK to provide a first and second dose which have substantially different blowing agent concentrations, by modifying and optimizing the amount of blowing agent provided during the second molding cycle, by routine experimentation, thus providing a mass of the second does which is preselected and controlled to have a different mass than the first dose, in order to create two different foam articles with substantially different properties such as mass and density properties.).
Regarding claim 18, PIERICK teaches: wherein the control system of the blowing agent introduction system is configured to control pre-pressurization and/or venting of the mold cavity (PIERICK teaches the injection device is capable of providing an injection pressure of no greater than about 80% the injection pressure necessary to forma and article from polymeric material free of a supercritical fluid additive within the cavity [0010]).
Claim 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pierick et al. (U.S. PGPUB 2004/0262813), hereinafter PIERICK, KIM (U.S. PGPUB 2007/0141188), hereinafter KIM, and Binder et al. (U.S. 5,045,085), hereinafter BINDER, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Pitscheneder et al. (U.S. PGPUB 2005/0053684), hereinafter PITSCHENEDER.
Regarding claim 17, PIERICK and KIM, but do not explicitly teach: further comprising communicating the mass of the first shot and/or the mass of the second shot by an RFID chip on coupled to the mold. In the same field of endeavor, injection molding, PITSCHENEDER teaches an RFID system that has a receiving unit (antenna) of the reading device that can be arranged in the inside wall of the mold cavity [0006]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to modify PIERICK, KIM and BINDER, by having an RFID system to read inside the mold cavity, as suggested by PITSCHENEDER, in order to use the read data to optimize the injection molding process [0004] and avoid or reduce an unwanted screening effect [0006].
Claim 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pierick et al. (U.S. PGPUB 2004/0262813), hereinafter PIERICK, KIM (U.S. PGPUB 2007/0141188), hereinafter KIM, and Binder et al. (U.S. 5,045,085), hereinafter BINDER, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Baxi (U.S. 4,935,191), hereinafter BAXI.
Regarding claim 18, PIERICK teaches the limitations stated above. In the alternative, in the same field of endeavor, injection molding, BAXI teaches a valve means for venting the gas from the cavity, including means for controlling the rate of venting [Col. 2, lines 67-68 – Col. 3, lines 1-3]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to modify PIERICK, KIM and BINDER, by controlling venting into the cavity, as suggested by BAXI, in order for the mold space to reach atmospheric pressure [Col. 3, lines 42-45].
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CAROLINE BEHA whose telephone number is (571)272-2529. The examiner can normally be reached MONDAY - FRIDAY 9:00 A.M. - 5:00 P.M.
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 on (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.
/C.B./Examiner, Art Unit 1748
/Abbas Rashid/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1748
Prosecution Insights