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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 12/03/2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Applicant filed a response, amended claim 17, and added new claim 24 on 12/03/2025.
Response to Arguments
Arguments are primarily drawn to the amended claims. The rejection below addresses the amendments.
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 17-19, 23, and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hawley (US 5,770,143) in view of Okugawa (English Translation of JPH11138546) and Jerby (PG-PUB 2014/0021171).
Regarding claim 17, Hawley teaches a process for manufacturing a molded piece, the method comprising:
a step of arranging a molding material within a cavity for molding in a mold (Col 4, Ln 49-67 and Col 5, Ln 60-67) having multiple ports configured for connecting a plurality of variable transmission units, thereby providing communication holes that bring the outside of the mold and the cavity into communication with each other to allow for microwave heating (Figure 1A to 1E; Col 2, Ln 38-44; and Col 6, Ln 9-11); and
a step of applying microwaves to a molding material arranged within the cavity in the mold, via multiple variable transmission units that are attached, in one-to-one correspondence, to the multiple communication holes in the mold (Figure 1A and 1E; Figure 23; and Col 6, Ln 8-21), wherein the microwaves are applied into the cavity via each of the multiple variable transmission units (Col 10, 46-50),
Hawley teaches the variable transmission units are coupled to different ports (i.e., communication holes) provided on the top and bottom of the cavity within the mold (Figures 21A-21C and 23 and Col 10, Ln 5-25).
Hawley does not explicitly teach (1) injecting a molding material into a cavity for molding in a mold, wherein the mold including multiple mold members include a movable mold and a stationary mold, and wherein the communication holes are provided in the movable mold and (2) a step of moving the movable mold attached to the variable transmission units in a direction of opening the mold after the step of applying microwaves to the molding material in the cavity.
As to (1), Okugawa teaches a process of molding using an injection mold comprising a fixed mold and movable mold [0012] surrounded by waveguides [0009]-[0010], the process comprising simultaneously injecting molding material into a mold [0012]-[0013] and heating the material with microwaves during injection [0012]-[0013] to prevent temperature drop of the resin material entering the cavity and prevent flow mark [0014], [0017].
Both Hawley and Okugawa are drawn to the same field of endeavor pertaining to injection molding and using microwaves for heating the molding material. Hawley does not teach the particular injection mold use, prompting one of ordinary skill in the art to look elsewhere. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute the injection mold of Hawley with an injection mold comprising two molds as taught by Okugawa to provide a suitable injection mold for the purpose of injection molding an article.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate the ports distribution of Hawley in the mold of Hawley in view of Okugawa such that the ports are both in the movable and stationary molds for distributing energy as desired by Hawley (Col 5, Ln 47-59). In an embodiment, Hawley teaches two communication holes at the top of the cavity and one at the bottom of the cavity.
While Hawley in view of Okugawa does not explicitly disclose the communication holes are provided in the movable mold, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the mold corresponding to the top of the cavity can be either the movable mold or stationary mold.
As to (2), Jerby teaches a method for solid structure formation by localized microwaves for additive fabrication of by use of localized microwave radiation applied to a source material, in the form of a powder, wire or other solid form (Abstract). Jerby teaches the additive fabrication device comprises a microwave apparatus including a microwave generator and a near-field microwave applicator, said microwave applicator being configured to apply localized microwave radiation to a quantity of the source material so as to transform the quantity of source material into an included volume providing an integrated portion of the workpiece, thereby incrementing the workpiece. Jerby teaches a waveguide made of a coaxial structure (Figure 2 and 4 and [0072], [0076]). Jerby teaches the microwave concentrator can be in various suitable arrangements, including but not limited to, an open-ended coaxial waveguide, an open-ended strip-line waveguide, a short monopole antenna and a hollow waveguide [0070]-[0071].
Jerby teaches the microwave can be generated by a microwave tube, e.g. magnetron, or a solid state circuit [0080], and where motion is to be performed by the microwave apparatus, it may be preferably to provide the microwave applicator at the end of a flexible waveguide such that the microwave generator can remain static as the applicator moves [0082].
Based on the teachings of Jerby, one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood making a microwave applicator flexible and movable is a known technique in the art when supplying microwave using a moving unit. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to modify the process of Hawley in view of Okugawa with the technique of Jerby to make the movable mold of Hawley in view of Okugawa capable of being moved with the integrated variable transmission units, yielding the predictable result of making the integrated structure of Hawley in view of Okugawa operable and movable.
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would naturally perform the step of moving the movable mold member attached to the variable transmission unit in a direction of opening the mold after the step of applying microwaves to the molding material in the cavity of Hawley in view of Okugawa and Jerby.
Regarding claim 18, Hawley in view of Okugawa and Jerby teaches the process as applied to claim 17, wherein the molding material is a liquid molding material (Hawley, Col 5, Ln 60-64 and Col 6, Ln 66-Col 7, Ln 5), and the molding material is heated by applying microwaves thereto (Hawley, Col 5, Ln 48-59).
Regarding claim 19, Hawley in view of Okugawa and Jerby teaches the process as applied to claim 17, wherein microwaves are applied into the cavity via each of the multiple variable transmission units such that the microwaves within the cavity has a desired heating pattern by engineering of the microwave input, frequency, and power level (i.e., desired intensity distribution) (Hawley, Col 4, Ln 31-32; Col 5, ln 48-59; Col 9, Ln 35-37).
Regarding claim 23, Hawley in view of Okugawa and Jerby teaches the process as applied to claim 17, wherein microwaves are applied via the multiple variable transmission units for different periods (Hawley, Col 10, Ln 46-48).
Regarding claim 24, Hawley in view of Okugawa and Jerby teaches the process as applied to claim 17, further comprising: a step of moving the movable mold member attached to the variable transmission units in a direction of closing the mold before the step of injecting the molding material into the cavity (see rejection of claim 17 and Jerby, [0080]-[0082]).
Claims 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hawley (US 5,770,143) in view of Okugawa (English Translation of JPH11138546) and Jerby (PG-PUB 2014/0021171), as applied to claim 17, in further view of Nehls (PG-PUB 2011/0266717).
Regarding claim 20, Hawley in view of Okugawa and Jerby teaches the process as applied to claim 17, wherein different characteristics of the microwaves are controlled (Hawley, Figure 23 and Col 10, Ln 5- 14 and Ln 19-25).
Hawley in view of Okugawa and Jerby does not explicitly teach a phase of microwaves to be applied via each of the variable transmission units.
Nehls teaches the microwave radiator unit is equipped with a distributor device which generates repeating phase shifts between the microwave antennas connected to it, so that the interference pattern inside the space changes constantly. Time averaging and integration of the instantaneous irradiated power (including by thermal diffusion) therefore gives a homogeneous temperature distribution, despite the use of interference patterns with essential inhomogeneities relating to a fixed time. The desired homogenizing effect in respect of the temperature distribution inside the space is obtained because the interference pattern changes with time, constantly or recurrently owing to the phase shift which is provided by the distributor device.
Both Hawley in view of Okugawa and Nehls are drawn to the same field of endeavor pertaining to microwave-based heating. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the applied microwaves of Hawley in view of Okugawa and Jerby with controlling the microwaves with repeating phase shifts between the variable transmission unit so that the interference pattern inside the space changes constantly for the benefit of providing a homogenous temperature distribution as taught by Nehls.
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hawley (US 5,770,143) in view of Okugawa (English Translation of JPH11138546) and Jerby (PG-PUB 2014/0021171), as applied to claim 17, in further view of Akita (PG-PUB 2012/0283348).
Regarding claim 22, Hawley in view of Okugawa and Jerby teaches the process as applied to claim 17, wherein microwaves with different parameters are applied via the multiple variable transmission units (Hawley, Col 4, Ln 31-32; Col 5, ln 48-59; Col 6, Ln 42-50; and Col 9, Ln 35-37).
Hawley in view of Okugawa and Jerby does not explicitly teach microwaves with different intensities via the variable transmission units are applied.
Akita teaches a process of curing a thermoset resin with microwave radiation. Akita teaches as the microwave radiation is attenuated as it travels through the carbon-fiber-reinforced thermosetting polymer, less heat is generated by microwave
dissipation at the innermost layers of the article than at its outer surface [0035]. Akita teaches as different degrees of dielectric heating cause the temperature to diverge between different layers of the article, heat is conducted from the hottest to the coldest
layers, limiting this temperature divergence, and if the article receives microwave radiation at a continuously high power level, this temperature divergence will prevent a
homogeneous degree of curing throughout the article [0035]. Akita teaches in order to accelerate the heating-up phase of this microwave curing method, while preventing an excessive temperature divergence within the article, the heating-up phase is divided in more than one stage, the control unit commanding a different power level of the microwave emitter during each stage [036]-[0040].
Both Hawley in view of Okugawa and Akita are drawn to the same field of endeavor pertaining to microwave-based heating of thermoset resin. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to improve the process of Hawley in view of Okugawa and Jerby with different stages of heating using different power levels (i.e., different intensities) to avoid temperature divergence and obtain a more uniform degree of curing throughout the cured article as taught by Akita.
Alternatively, claims 17-19, 23, and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Berggren (US 4,323,745) in view of Lee (PG-PUB 2020/0094445).
Regarding claim 17, Berggren teaches a method for manufacturing a molded piece, the method comprising:
a step of injecting a molding material into a cavity for molding in a mold (Figure 5, items 51 and 52 and Col 3, ln 60- Col 4, Ln 20) having one or more communication holes that bring outside of the mold and the cavity into communication with each other (Figure 5, item 54 and 55), the mold including multiple mold members that form the cavity (Figure 5, item 50),
a step of applying microwaves to the molding material in the cavity via variable transmission units that are attached to the one or more communication holes in the mold (Col 3, Ln 2-40), the microwaves are being applied into the cavity via variable transmission units (Col 3, Ln 2-40), thereby heating the molding material (Col 3, ln 60- Col 4, Ln 19).
Berggren does not explicitly teach the multiple mold members include a movable mold and a stationary mold, and wherein the communication holes are provided in the movable mold and a step of moving the movable member attached to the variable transmission units in a direction of opening the mold after the step of applying microwaves to the molding material in the cavity.
However, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that a two-part injection mold would require at least one movable mold. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to choose to make the mold with the communication holes as taught by Berggren either the stationary mold or movable mold because there are a limited number of options and either options would have yielded the predictable result of providing an injection mold with the capability to open and close to remove articles after molding and repeat the molding process. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to operate the mold with the communication hole as the movable mold and the other mold as a stationary mold.
Lee teaches a method for heating and compressing material using microwaves. Lee teaches a system including a top microwave antenna connected to the flexible waveguide, having a first plurality of slots for emitting the first portion of microwaves to be received by a top side of the material and heat the material [0004]-[0005], [0015]. Lee teaches the system includes a bottom microwave antenna connected to the rigid waveguide, having a second plurality of slots for emitting the second portion of microwaves to be received by a bottom side of the material and heat the material (Figure 1A and 1B). Lee teaches the flexible waveguide may have ridges or other flexible features to allow it to bend [0019].
Lee teaches the flexible waveguide bends when the mold closes and pressure is applied [0029]-[0032], and the flexible waveguide remains coupled to the mold when the presser returns to its first condition.
Lee teaches a known technique in the art to use a flexible waveguide coupled to a movable tool for improved convenience and operability. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the process of Berggren with the technique of Lee by using flexible variable transmission units coupled to the movable mold for the benefit of easily operating the movable mold without additional care (e.g., disassembling connections with variable transmission units). Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would naturally perform the step of moving the movable mold member attached to the variable transmission unit in a direction of opening the mold after the step of applying microwaves to the molding material in the cavity of Berggren in view of Lee.
Regarding claim 18, Berggren in view of Lee teaches the method as applied to claim 17, wherein the molding material is a liquid material (Berggren, Col 3, Ln 50-Col 4, LN 2) and the molding material is heated by applying microwaves thereto (Berggren, Col 4, Ln 3-32).
Regarding claim 19, Berggren in view of Lee teaches the method as applied to claim 19, wherein microwaves are applied into the cavity via each of the variable transmission units such that microwaves within the cavity has a desired intensity distribution (Berggren, Col 2, Ln 17-66).
Regarding claim 23, Berggren in view of Lee teaches the method as applied to claim 17, wherein microwaves are applied via the variable transmission units for different periods (Berggren, Col 2, Ln 39- 66 and Col 3, LN 3-19).
Regarding claim 24, Berggren in view of Lee teaches the process as applied to claim 17, further comprising: a step of moving the movable mold member attached tool the variable transmission units in a direction of closing the mold before the step of injecting the molding material into the cavity (see rejection of claim 17 and Lee, Figure 1A and 1B and [0029]-[0032]).
Alternatively, claims 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Berggren (US 4,323,745) in view of Lee (PG-PUB 2020/0094445), as applied to claim 17, in further view of Nehls (PG-PUB 2011/0266717).
Regarding claim 20, Berggren in view of Lee teaches the method as applied to claim 17, wherein the microwaves applied are controlled such that desired intensity distribution is obtained (Col 2, Ln 17-66).
Berggren in view of Lee does not explicitly teach a phase of microwaves to be applied via each of the variable transmission units.
Nehls teaches the microwave radiator unit is equipped with a distributor device which generates repeating phase shifts between the microwave antennas connected to it, so that the interference pattern inside the space changes constantly. Time averaging and integration of the instantaneous irradiated power (including by thermal diffusion) therefore gives a homogeneous temperature distribution, despite the use of interference patterns with essential inhomogeneities relating to a fixed time. The desired homogenizing effect in respect of the temperature distribution inside the space is obtained because the interference pattern changes with time, constantly or recurrently owing to the phase shift which is provided by the distributor device.
Both Berggren and Nehls are drawn to the same field of endeavor pertaining to microwave-based heating. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the process of Berggren with controlling the microwaves with repeating phase shifts between the variable transmission unit so that the interference pattern inside the space changes constantly for the benefit of providing a homogenous temperature distribution as taught by Nehls.
Alternatively, claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Berggren (US 4,323,745) in view of Lee (PG-PUB 2020/0094445), as applied to claim 17, in further view of Akita (PG-PUB 2012/0283348).
Alternatively, regarding claim 22, Berggren in view of Lee teaches the method as applied to claim 17,
Berggren in view of Lee does not explicitly teach microwaves with different intensities via the variable transmission units are applied.
Akita teaches a process of curing a thermoset resin with microwave radiation. Akita teaches as the microwave radiation is attenuated as it travels through the carbon-fiber-reinforced thermosetting polymer, less heat is generated by microwave
dissipation at the innermost layers of the article than at its outer surface. Akita teaches as different degrees of dielectric heating cause the temperature to diverge between different layers of the article, heat is conducted from the hottest to the coldest
layers, limiting this temperature divergence, and if the article receives microwave radiation at a continuously high power level, this temperature divergence will prevent a
homogeneous degree of curing throughout the article [0035]. Akita teaches in order to accelerate the heating-up phase of this microwave curing method, while preventing an excessive temperature divergence within the article, the heating-up phase is divided in more than one stage, the control unit commanding a different power level of the microwave emitter during each stage [036]-[0040].
Both Berggren and Akita are drawn to the same field of endeavor pertaining to microwave-based heating of thermoset resin. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to improve the process of Berggren with different stages of heating using different power levels (i.e., different intensities) to avoid temperature divergence and obtain a more uniform degree of curing throughout the cured article as taught by Akita.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HANA C PAGE whose telephone number is (571)272-1578. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9:00-5:30.
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, Phillip Tucker can be reached on 5712721095. 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.
/HANA C PAGE/Examiner, Art Unit 1745