Detailed Action
The communications received 06/23/2026 claims 43-62 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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 54-59 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected method, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 06/23/2026. The amendments to claims 60-62 are sufficient to class the claims as the same invention as that of 43-53.
Applicant's election with traverse of claims 43-53 and 60-62 in the reply filed on 06/23/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that now that the system of claim 43 is included in the method invention and therefore there is no justification that requires restriction between the groups of invention. This is not found persuasive because despite the amendments, there remains a key justification for restriction especially now that the restriction would be under US practice.
The inventions are independent or distinct, each from the other because:
Inventions pertaining to claims 54-59 and claims 43-53 and 60-62 are related as process and apparatus for its practice. The inventions are distinct if it can be shown that either: (1) the process as claimed can be practiced by another and materially different apparatus or by hand, or (2) the apparatus as claimed can be used to practice another and materially different process. (MPEP § 806.05(e)). In this case the apparatus can be employed such that automatic tool change device go to a cleaning station and perform maintenance on the mold which is a materially distinct process from what is claimed in the method.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“movement unit” in claims 43, 47, 48-50, 53, and 60 tied to an arm and functional equivalents as suggested in the instant specification at 0021.
“automatic tool change device” in claims 43-44, 46, and 53-55 which is tied to the structure of a shelf/table/station and functional equivalents as suggested in the instant specification at 0059.
“mechanical fastening devices” in claims 50-52 tied to quick release fasteners/ push-in connectors and their functional equivalents as described in the instant specification at 0020.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Objections
Claim 49 is objected to because of the following informalities:
“…and wherein the second interface and the third interface are transport interfaces are configured to be compatible with the first interface.” should read “and wherein the second interface and the third interface are transport interfaces and are configured to be compatible with the first interface.” or similar.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 49 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 49 recites the limitation "the at least one tool changing station" in claim 44. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For purposes of examination this is understood to read “an at least one tool changing station”.
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) 43, 48, and 50-53 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sato et al (US 2003/0111201 previously cited) hereinafter SAT and Guozhong et al (CN 110670416A refer to the supplied English translation previously cited) hereinafter GUO.
As for claim 43, SAT teaches a system for forming molded parts [Abstract; Fig. 23], comprising:
at least one molding station [Fig. 2; 0086-87] comprising:
a suction tool configured to suck in a pulp from a reservoir [Fig. 2(a) #4], wherein the pulp is a liquid solution comprising an environmentally-friendly degradable fiber material positioned in the reservoir [Fig. 22(a) #2; 0088], and wherein the suction tool is configured to form a molded part during application of a negative pressure in the suction tool [0087-88]; and
a movement unit on which the suction tool is reversibly mounted, wherein the movement unit is configured to move the suction tool to be in contact with the pulp (as there is a device that is moving the suction tool to other areas) [0087-90];
a preforming station comprising a prepressing tool, the prepressing tool being configured to preform the molded part by applying a prepressing pressure to reduce a proportion of the liquid solution in the molded part [Fig. 2(C) #5; 0090],
a hot-pressing station comprising a hot-pressing tool [Fig. 25 #630], the hot-pressing tool being configured to exert a hot-pressing pressure on the molded part (as the molded pulp is transferred to the drying station) [0250-251];
SAT does not teach:
wherein the prepressing tool is reversibly mounted in the preforming station;
wherein the hot-pressing tool is reversibly mounted in the hot-pressing station;
an automatic tool change device, wherein the automatic tool change device is configured to remove at least one tool selected from the suction tool, the prepressing tool, and the hot-pressing tool and replace the removed tool with a replacement tool.
GUO teaches that in pulp molding equipment that that one key manner of adapting to market needs to produce new and different products is by employing an automatic mold change system to swappable molds [7-18].
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 mold change system of GUO to SAT and to have made all molding faces of SAT reversibly mounted (i.e. swappable) as GUO teaches that this feature would allow SAT to readily adapt to new and different products required by a changing market. As both GUO and SAT pertain to pulp molding they are analogous art and one of ordinary skill in the art expects success in the combination.
As for claim 48, it is understood that in the combination of SAT/GUO that as all the molding faces of SAT/GUO are reversibly mounted that this would mean that each molding face would have their own respective reversible mounts therefore interfaces against the moving unit.
As for claim 50, SAT/GUO teach claim 48 and it is understood that in order for the vacuum and pressure elements of SAT to function that they must include mutually compatible media connections (such as #12 to 41) [SAT: 0076]. GUO teaches that the separable elements of the mold can be fixed together using mutually compatible mechanical fastening devices on either side of a connecting interface (quick release roller with mold clamps) that are quick and easy to remove [63].
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 mutually compatible mechanical fastening devices of GUO to the combination of SAT/GUO at all connecting interfaces in order to accomplish easy and quick removal of the interchangeable mold.
As for claim 51, SAT/GUO teach claim 48 and as taught in claim 50, the mutually compatible mechanical fastening devices would be included in the second interface and its connections.
As for claim 52, SAT/GUO teach claim 48 and as taught in claim 50, the mutually compatible mechanical fastening devices would be included in the third interface and its connections.
As for claim 53, SAT/GUO teach 43 and that there would be a control unit configured to control the entirety of the molding station and its functions [GUO: 67]
Claim(s) 44-45 and 49 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SAT/GUO as applied to claim 43 and further in view of Zong et al (US 2019/0064396) hereinafter ZON.
As for claim 44, SAT/GUO teaches claim 43, but fails to teach a tool changing station.
ZON teaches that when using exchangeable molds/dies/tools that one feature that allows for the changing of exchangeable mold/die/tool is a mold changing station with mold changing elements [#36, 0048; 0116]. This allows for the automatic exchange of the mold with minimal/no interruption [0048].
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 automatic mold changing system of ZON to exchange the exchangeable dies/molds/tools of SAT/GUO in order to allow for minimal disruption to the molding process via the automatic exchange of the tool through the station.
As for claim 45, SAT/GUO/ZON teach claim 44, wherein the at least one tool changing station comprises three tool changing positions,
a first tool changing position adapted to a shape of the suction tool, a second tool changing position adapted to a shape of the prepressing tool, and a third tool changing position adapted to a shape of the hot-pressing tool (as it is understood that the exchange of all the tool aspects would be performed by the station, therefore there would be a movement/position associated with each during the method of using the station) [ZON: 0048-54].
As for claim 49, SAT/GUO teach claim 48 and SAT/GUO/ZON teach the at least one tool changing station in which it is understood to be automatically exchanged via molding exchange elements automatically [ZON: #36; 0116], similarly it is expected that these mold exchange elements would be used to exchange the molds in particular along their interfaces by which they connect to the moving unit. In addition the using of these interfaces to transfer is a manner of operating the device which does not further limit apparatus claims [MPEP 2114].
Claim(s) 46-47 and 60-62 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SAT/GUO/ZON as applied to claim 45 and further in view of Hehl (US 4,698,007) hereinafter HEH.
As for claim 46, SAT/GUO/ZON teach claim 45 but fail to teach a conveyor belt.
HEH teaches that when automatically exchanging molds that one manner of transporting the molds to the relevant areas is through the use of an endless conveyor belt (conveyor chain) [Abstract]. The use of the conveyor belt helps in keeping the mold exchange and transfer mechanisms applicable to a wider net of differently sized mold bodies while employing a simple construction [col. 2 l. 13-33].
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 conveyor belt of HEH to convey the tool elements of SAT/GUO/ZON to be exchanged in order to utilize a construction that is both simple and effective for multiple sizings of mold bodies.
As for claim 47, SAT/GUO/ZON/HEH teach claim 45 as the conveyor belt is an addition, it is understood that the tool changing elements included by ZON [Fig. 3 #36] which serve as tool movement units. The placing of the tool on the conveyor belt is a method of using the apparatus which does not differentiate from the prior art [MPEP 2114].
As for claim 60, SAT/GUO teach claim 43 and SAT/GUO/ZON/HEH as applied to claim 46 teach the conveyor belt. Although it is understood that the movement unit can move a tool segment on the station should the Applicant disagree, in ZON one manner of moving molds effectively and in a highly adaptable manner is through the use of a robotic arm [#36; 0116; 0135].
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have replaced the movement unit of SAT/GUO/ZON/HEH with the one of ZON in order to be capable of moving molds in a highly adaptable manner. It is understood that this style of movement unit would be capable of moving a tool between its corresponding tool changing position and a station corresponding to a tool located on any part of the system.
As for claim 61, SAT/GUO/ZON/HEH teach claim 60 and the movement unit is a robotic arm [ZON: #36; refer to claim 60].
As for claim 62, SAT/GUO/ZON/HEH teach claim 60 and it is understood the positions in of themselves are methods of using the apparatus, therefore they do not distinguish the prior art from the claimed invention [MPEP 2114].
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
/RITA P ADHLAKHA/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1711
Prosecution Insights