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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 05/04/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Applicant amendment filed 05/04/2026 has been entered and is currently under consideration. Claims 1-8 remains pending in the application.
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.
Claim(s) 5-6 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cornell (US2321584) in view of Watanabe (JP3389976 of record with reference made to examiner provided machine translation), Wang (US6158053 of record), and Conner (US3962392 of record).
Regarding claim 5, Cornell teaches:
A method for manufacturing a frame, the frame being configured for a costume that entirely covers the head and full facial region of the wearer above the neck (p 1, col 2, ln 45-53).
Cornell does not teach manufacturing a frame from a sheet-shaped or flat-plate-shaped resin member by deforming the resin member by using a vacuum molding apparatus,
wherein the method includes:
preparing the sheet-shaped or flat-plate-shaped resin member having a plurality of though holes formed in advance;
a cover mounting step of removably mounting a sheet-shaped cover onto the resin member so as to seal each of the plurality of through holes;
a heating step of heating the resin member and the cover;
a vacuum molding step of bringing a mold in a predetermined three-dimensional shape into contact with the resin member on which the cover is mounted to vacuum-mold an object in the three-dimensional shape; and
a mold release step of releasing the three-dimensional object from the mold; and
a cover detachment step of detaching the cover from the molded resin member after the mold release step, such that each of the plurality of through holes on the molded resin member is exposed as a ventilation path penetrating the molded resin member;
wherein a shape of each of the plurality of through holes on the molded resin member is deformed in proportion to how much the resin member surrounding each of the plurality of through holes is deformed.
In the same field of endeavor regarding forming of headwear, Watanabe teaches:
A method for manufacturing a frame ([0007]), from a sheet-shaped or flat-plate-shaped resin member by deforming the resin member by using a vacuum molding apparatus ([0018]),
wherein the method includes:
preparing a sheet-shaped or flat-plate-shaped resin member (sheet material 10; [0018]);
a heating step of heating the resin member ([0018]);
a vacuum molding step of bringing a mold in a predetermined three-dimensional shape into contact with the resin member to vacuum-mold an object in the three-dimensional shape ([0018]); and
a mold release step of releasing the three-dimensional object from the mold ([0018]).
Cornell further teaches that the costume comprises a wig (p 1, col 2, ln 40-44).
Watanabe teaches the above method for the motivation of obtaining a wig having uniform film thickness and that is easy to manufacture ([0007]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method as taught by Cornell with the method as taught by Watanabe in order to obtain a costume having a wig having uniform film thickness and that is easy to manufacture.
Cornell in view of Watanabe does not teach a resin member having a plurality of through holes formed in advance, such that each of the plurality of through holes on the molded resin member is exposed as a ventilation path penetrating the molded resin member.
In the same field of endeavor regarding forming of headwear, Wang teaches a molded headwear with a plurality of vent holes for the motivation of improving ventilation (col 2, ln 53-55).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method as taught by Cornell in view of Watanabe to include the vent holes as taught by Wang in order to improve ventilation.
Cornell in view of Watanabe and Wang does not teach that the through hole is formed in advance.
However, it has been held that selection of any order of performing process steps is prima facie obvious in the absence of new or unexpected results. See MPEP 2144.04(IV)(C).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method as taught by Cornell in view of Watanabe and Wang to have the vent holes formed prior to the mold installation step.
Cornell in view of Watanabe and Wang does not teach a cover mounting step of removably mounting a sheet-shaped cover on the resin member on which the plurality of through holes are formed in advance so as to seal at least the through holes, a heating step of heating the cover, bringing a mold in a predetermined three-dimensional shape into contact with the resin member on which the cover is mounted and a cover detachment step of detaching the cover from the molded resin member after the mold release step.
In the same field of endeavor regarding forming of articles of apparel, Conner teaches a cover mounting step of mounting a sheet-shaped cover on the molding material so as to seal a molding material (col 4, ln 12-23), heating the cover (col 4, ln 32-39), bringing a mold in a predetermined three-dimensional shape into contact with the resin member on which the cover is mounted (col 4, ln 55-64) and a cover detachment step of detaching the cover from the molded resin member after the mold release step (col 5, ln 25-43) for the motivation of preventing the flow of air through the molding material to enable vacuum forming (col 4, ln 52-55).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method as taught by Cornell in view of Watanabe and Wang to use the cover as taught by Conner in order to prevent the flow of air through the molding material to enable vacuum forming.
Cornell in view of Watanabe, Wang, and Conner does not explicitly recite wherein a shape of the each of the plurality of through holes on the molded resin member is deformed in proportion to how much the resin member surrounding each of the plurality of through holes is deformed.
The examiner notes that the through holes on the molded resin member are by their very nature defined by the resin member surrounding the through holes. Therefore any deformation of the resin member surrounding the through holes directly results in a corresponding deformation of the through holes.
Since Cornell in view of Watanabe, Wang, and Conner makes obvious deforming a resin member on which a plurality of through holes is formed in advance, the through holes will be deformed by a proportional amount.
Regarding claim 6, Cornell teaches:
A method for manufacturing a frame, the frame being configured for a costume that entirely covers the head and full facial region of the wearer above the neck (p 1, col 2, ln 45-53).
Cornell does not teach manufacturing a frame by deforming a sheet-shaped or a flat-plate-shaped resin member by using a vacuum molding apparatus comprising:
a chamber;
an elevating table housed in the chamber;
a pedestal arranged on an upper part of the chamber; and
a heater arranged above the pedestal,
wherein the method includes:
a mold installation step of installing a mold in a predetermined three-dimensional shape on the elevating table;
a resin member mounting step of mounting on the pedestal the sheet-shaped or the flat-plate-shaped resin member on which a plurality of through holes are formed in advance;
a cover mounting step of removably mounting a sheet-shaped cover on the pedestal so as to seal each of the plurality of through holes on the resin member;
a heating step of heating the resin member and the cover with the heater;
a vacuum molding step of elevating the mold by using the elevating table to be brought in contact with the resin member and the cover and depressurizing the inside of the chamber;
a mold release step of releasing the molded resin member and a molded cover from the mold; and
a cover detachment step of detaching the cover from the molded resin member after the mold release step, such that each of the plurality of through holes on the molded resin member is exposed as a ventilation path penetrating the molded resin member,
wherein a shape of each of the through holes on the molded resin member is deformed in proportion to how much the resin member surrounding each of the through holes is deformed.
In the same field of endeavor regarding forming of headwear, Watanabe teaches:
A method for manufacturing a frame for a costume that covers a wearer’s head ([0007]) by deforming a sheet-shaped or a flat-plate-shaped resin member (sheet material 10) by using a vacuum molding apparatus comprising:
a chamber (Fig 1-6: molding chamber 2);
an elevating table housed in the chamber (Fig 1-6: lifting platform 9);
a pedestal arranged on an upper part of the chamber (Fig 1-6: base 4); and
a heater arranged above the pedestal (Fig 1-6: heater 8), wherein the method includes:
a mold installation step of installing a mold in a predetermined three-dimensional shape on the elevating table ([0018]);
a resin member mounting step of mounting on the pedestal the sheet-shaped or the flat-plate-shaped resin member ([0018]);
a heating step of heating the resin member with the heater ([0018]);
a vacuum molding step of elevating the mold by using the elevating table to be brought in contact with the resin member and depressurizing the inside of the chamber ([0018]);
a mold release step of releasing the molded resin member and a molded cover from the mold ([0018]).
Cornell further teaches that the costume comprises a wig (p 1, col 2, ln 40-44).
Watanabe teaches the above method for the motivation of obtaining a wig having uniform film thickness and that is easy to manufacture ([0007]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method as taught by Cornell with the method as taught by Watanabe in order to obtain a costume having a wig having uniform film thickness and that is easy to manufacture.
Cornell in view of Watanabe does not teach the resin member onto which a plurality of through holes are formed in advance, such that each of the plurality of through holes on the molded resin member is exposed as a ventilation path penetrating the molded resin member.
In the same field of endeavor regarding forming of headwear, Wang teaches a molded headwear with a plurality of vent holes for the motivation of improving ventilation (col 2, ln 53-55).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method as taught by Cornell in view of Watanabe to include the vent holes as taught by Wang in order to improve ventilation.
Cornell in view of Watanabe and Wang does not teach that the plurality of through holes are formed in advance.
However, it has been held that selection of any order of performing process steps is prima facie obvious in the absence of new or unexpected results. See MPEP 2144.04(IV)(C).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method as taught by Cornell in view of Watanabe and Wang to have the vent holes formed prior to the mold installation step.
Cornell in view of Watanabe and Wang does not teach a cover mounting step of mounting a sheet-shaped cover on the pedestal so as to seal each of the plurality of through holes on the resin member; heating the cover with the heater; releasing the molded cover from the mold; and a cover detachment step of detaching the cover from the molded resin member after the mold release step.
In the same field of endeavor regarding forming of articles of apparel, Conner teaches a cover mounting step of mounting a sheet-shaped cover on the pedestal so as to seal a molding material (col 4, ln 12-23); heating the cover with the heater (col 4, ln 32-39); releasing the molded cover from the mold (col 5, ln 25-28); and a cover detachment step of detaching the cover from the molded resin member after the mold release step (col 5, ln 25-43) for the motivation of preventing the flow of air through the molding material to enable vacuum forming (col 4, ln 52-55).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method as taught by Cornell in view of Watanabe and Wang to use the cover as taught by Conner in order to prevent the flow of air through the molding material to enable vacuum forming.
Cornell in view of Watanabe, Wang, and Conner does not explicitly recite wherein a shape of each of the through holes on the molded resin member is deformed in proportion to how much the resin member surrounding each of the through holes is deformed.
The examiner notes that the through holes on the molded resin member are by their very nature defined by the resin member surrounding the through holes. Therefore any deformation of the resin member surrounding the through holes directly results in a corresponding deformation of the through holes.
Since Cornell in view of Watanabe, Wang, and Conner teaches deforming a resin member on which through holes are formed in advance, the through holes will be deformed by a proportional amount.
Regarding claim 8, Cornell in view of Watanabe, Wang, and Conner teaches the method of claim 6.
Cornell in view of Watanabe, Wang, and Conner further makes obvious wherein the method includes a through hole forming step of forming the plurality of the through holes on the resin member before the mold installation step (see rejection of claim 6).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cornell in view of Watanabe, Wang, and Conner as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of McGuire et al. (US 2008/0261014 of record) hereinafter McGuire.
Regarding claim 7, Cornell in view of Watanabe, Wang, and Conner teaches the method of claim 6.
Cornell in view of Watanabe, Wang, and Conner does not teach a mold release agent application step of applying a mold release agent at least to a surface of the mold and a surface of the resin member before or after the mold installation step.
In the same field of endeavor regarding molding, McGuire teaches applying a mold release agent to a surface of a mold prior to vacuum molding for the motivation of assisting with removal of the article from the mold ([0103]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method as taught by Cornell in view of Watanabe, Wang, and Conner to include the mold release applying step as taught by McGuire in order to assist with removal of the article from the mold.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05/04/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The examiner notes that in all of applicant arguments, not a single citation of the references at hand were provided as evidence for any of the assertions made by applicant. Attorney arguments cannot take the place of factual evidence.
Applicant argues that Cornell does not teach certain limitations of the claims. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Cornell is not relied upon to teach or suggest any of the limitations argued by applicant.
Applicant argues that Watanabe does not teach certain limitations of the claims. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Watanabe is not relied upon to teach or suggest any of the limitations argued by applicant.
Applicant argues that Wang does not teach certain limitations of the claims. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Wang is not relied upon to teach or suggest any of the limitations argued by applicant.
Applicant argues that Conner does not teach a removable cover. However, as cited in the art rejection above, col 5, ln 25-43 recites “The vacuum cups grip the molded plastic sheet and fabric assembly, and lift it out of the mold… Ultimately, the fabric is taken off the plastic, and the latter is salvaged and reprocessed into flat sheet stock for reuse.” Not only is the cover removable, Conner teaches that the cover is removed after mold release as further claimed. As pointed out by applicant, the purpose of the plastic cover is to address any porosity in the material being molded so as to provide a seal. Since the molded material of the prior art includes a plurality of ventilation holes as taught by Wang, there exists a natural motivation to provide impermeability to these vent holes in addition to any other porosity in the molding material already identified by Conner to allow vacuum molding.
Applicant argues that the protective sheet of McGuire is permanently affixed. However, the protective sheet of McGuire is not relied upon to teach any aspect of the claims and it is not clear what a discussion of said protective sheet accomplishes in the context of the claims. As applicant points out, McGuire is relied upon for applying a mold release agent.
Applicant argues against the combination of the prior art, arguing that the references are drawn from different fields of endeavor. However, Cornell is directed to forming a costume including a wig and garment (p 1, col 1, ln 1-13). Watanabe is directed to forming a wig ([0001]). Wang is directed to forming headwear (col 1, ln 5-8). Conner is directed to forming articles of apparel (col 1, ln 6-9). McGuire is directed to forming of composite articles using vacuum forming. While applicant attempts to characterize the references as being in completely different fields of endeavor, upon examination, one of ordinary skill in the art would immediately recognize that the prior art is generally related to articles of apparel formed by molding. It is therefore entirely reasonable to draw from prior art that discusses forming articles of clothing or methods of molding as all the references do.
Applicant argues that there is no reason to deviate from the papier-mache of Cornell. However, the examiner notes that papier-mache is merely listed as an example and also includes material such as plastic (p 1, col 2, ln 31-33). Therefore it is entirely reasonable to look to other methods of molding or forming articles of apparel using plastics for improvement to the costume of Cornell.
Applicant argues that there is no reason to reverse the order of forming the vent holes of Wang. Applicant cites claim 2 as evidence that Wang teaches away from this modification. However, col 4, ln 21-27 of Wang recites that “While the present invention has been described in connection with what is considered the most practical and preferred embodiments, it is understood that this invention is not limited to the disclosed embodiments but is intended to cover various arrangements included within the spirit and scope of the broadest interpretation so as to encompass all such modifications and equivalent arrangements.” Wang is open to modification, and applicant has not shown how creating vent holes in the garment material prior to molding results in a fundamentally different product than forming the vent holes after molding.
Applicant argues that there is no reason to apply Conner’s air-impervious laminating sheet when the purpose of Cornell’s face mask is to present a visually pleasing surface rather than to manage internal ventilation. However, in complete contradiction to applicant’s arguments, p 1, col 2, ln 36-39 of Cornell recites “openings are provided to permit breathing and vision in the usual manner”.
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
Applicant argues that Cornell teaches away from a plurality of through holes. However, this argument is in direct contradiction to p 1, col 2, ln 36-39 of Cornell which recites “openings are provided to permit breathing and vision in the usual manner”. Applicant argues that vent holes would destroy the aesthetic purpose of Cornell. However, applicant has provided no evidence of such an assertion beyond attorney argument. Furthermore, the metric of aesthetics is by it’s very nature a subjective judgment, and while it is possible to apply objective metrics to measure aesthetics, Cornell does not contain any discussion on such metrics and therefore does not contain any discussion on how the metric of aesthetic can be violated.
Applicant argues that Conner teaches away from a removable cover. The examiner notes that applicant has provided no evidence of the assertion that the cover of Conner is permanent, despite multiple assertions made by applicant. This is most likely attributed to the fact that Conner teaches the opposite. Col 5, ln 25-43 of Conner recites “The vacuum cups grip the molded plastic sheet and fabric assembly, and lift it out of the mold… Ultimately, the fabric is taken off the plastic, and the latter is salvaged and reprocessed into flat sheet stock for reuse.” Not only is the cover removable, Conner teaches that the cover is removed after mold release as further claimed.
Applicant argues that modifying the prior art method to include vent hole prior to molding is overcome by unexpected results. As evidence, applicant argues that the resulting method is different simply by nature of the of the steps being rearranged. However, this is not an unexpected result. See MPEP 716.02(a). Applicant further argues that the inherency argument relied upon by the art rejection regarding the deformation of the through holes relative to the resin member is further evidence of unexpected results. First, the subject matter as claimed does not relate in any way to the molding step. Claims 5 and 6 merely recite “wherein a shape of each of the through holes on the molded resin member is deformed in proportion to how much the resin member surrounding each of the through holes is deformed.” There is no requirement that the claimed deformation occurs during the molding step. Furthermore, the fact that holes which are by their very nature defined by the surrounding molded material deforms in proportion to deformation of the molding material is not an unexpected result if the modification is made to include the holes prior to molding. The result that the holes that did not exist prior to the reordering of steps would not undergo deformation during molding by nature of not existing is not an unexpected result, but rather a result based on common sense well within the purview of one of ordinary skill. Again, see MPEP 716.02(a).
Applicant argues that the claimed invention produces new and unexpected results based on evidence provided in the affidavit filed 03/05/2025. However, the portion of the affidavit cited and argued merely discuss the benefits of vent holes in general, and not specifically to vent holes formed prior to molding as compared to vent holes formed after molding as pertains to the arguments at hand. At best, the data presented serves as evidence of unexpected results of vent holes vs no vent holes.
Applicant argues that Conner dose not teach a cover detachment step. Applicant argues that the plastic fuses to the fiber and remains permanently bonded. Again, no evidence is provided. To the contrary, col 5, ln 25-43 of Conner recites “The vacuum cups grip the molded plastic sheet and fabric assembly, and lift it out of the mold… Ultimately, the fabric is taken off the plastic, and the latter is salvaged and reprocessed into flat sheet stock for reuse.” Not only is the cover removable, Conner teaches that the cover is removed after mold release as further claimed. Applicant goes on to argue that Conner does not teach pre-formed through holes. Again, In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). As pointed out by applicant, the purpose of the plastic cover is to address any porosity in the material being molded so as to provide a seal. Since the molded material of the prior art includes a plurality of ventilation holes as taught by Wang, there exists a natural motivation to provide impermeability to these vent holes in addition to any other porosity in the molding material already identified by Conner to allow vacuum molding.
Applicant argues that the protective sheet of McGuire does not teach a removable cover. However, the protective sheet of McGuire is not relied upon to teach any aspect of the claims and it is not clear what a discussion of said protective sheet accomplishes in the context of the claims. As applicant points out, McGuire is relied upon for applying a mold release agent.
Applicant argues that the affidavit filed 03/05/2025 is evidence of non-obviousness of the claims. However, applicant has not shown how the data provided is evidence of non-obviousness as it relates to arguments directed against the prior art. At best, the data presented serves as evidence of unexpected results of vent holes vs no vent holes while the current arguments are directed to forming holes prior to molding as compared to holes formed after molding.
For at least the above reasons, the application is not in condition for allowance.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDER A WANG whose telephone number is (571)272-5361. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 8 am-4 pm EST.
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, Alison Hindenlang can be reached on 571-270-7001. 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 A WANG/ Examiner, Art Unit 1741
/ALISON L HINDENLANG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1741
Prosecution Insights