DETAILED ACTION
In Reply filed on 05/27/2025, claims 1-24 are pending. Claims 4 and 10-24 are withdrawn based on the restriction response filed on 01/17/2025. Claims 1, 3, and 5-6 are currently amended. Claims 1-3 and 5-9 are considered in the current Office 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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Status of Previous Objections/Rejections
Previous objection to the drawings are withdrawn based on the Applicant’s amendment to the drawing and the specification.
Previous objection to the specification are withdrawn based on the Applicant’s amendment to the abstract.
Previous claim objections are withdrawn based on the Applicant’s amendment. However, new rejection has been established.
Previous 35 USC 112(b) rejections for claims 3 and 6 are withdrawn based on the Applicant’s amendment. However 35 USC 112(b) rejection of claim 7 is maintained.
35 USC 102 rejections are withdrawn in view of the Applicant’s amendment. However, new 35 USC 103 rejections are established.
Claim Objections
It is noted here that the claim amendment filed 05/27/2025 did not have the proper status identifier for claim 7 which is currently amended; however, the current status identifier is previously presented. Applicant is encouraged to ensure that all claims have the proper status identifiers in the future in accordance with MPEP 714(II)C.
Claim Interpretation
Claims 1-3 and 5-9 recites “a blank”. The Examiner is interpreting the blank as the structure on the surface of the mold, either concave out or convex in, that is used to shape/create parts of a specific shape based on the shape of the blank. The instant application also discloses a mold with a blank structure on the surface of the mold (Figure 4).
The Examiner wishes to point out the application claims are directed towards an apparatus and as such will be examined under such conditions. The material worked upon or the process of using the apparatus is viewed as recitation of intended use and is given patentable weight only to the extent that structure is added to the claimed apparatus (Please see MPEP 2112.01 and 2114-2115 for further details). Furthermore, the Examiner wishes to point out that the claims are directed to an injection molding device for manufacturing and the combination of a folded black and an injection-molded plastic component are the product produced by the device.
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 use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
Claim 1 recites the limitation “clamping means to clamp” and Claim 8 recites the limitation “clamping means” has been interpreted broadly as any structure that is capable of connecting or clamping two elements together.
Claims 7 and 8 recites the limitation “holding means” has been interpreted broadly as any structure that is capable of holding an element.
Claim 8 recites the limitation “suction means” has been interpreted broadly as any structure that is capable of suctioning an element such as vacuum or negative pressure source.
Claim 8 recites the limitation “friction means” has been interpreted broadly as any structure that is capable of providing friction such as any rough surface.
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 7 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 7 recites the limitation "the thereto related side face" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 1, which claim 7 is depended upon, recites “at least one pair of center block side faces”, thus, it is unclear as to which side face that “the thereto related side face” is referring to.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 1-3 and 5-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO2004/103676 (Armbruster), machine translation provided in Office Action dated 05/27/2025.
PNG
media_image1.png
680
788
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 1, Armbruster teaches an injection molding device (Figure 1), for manufacturing of composite products ([0005], producing a multi-part object) comprising a combination of a folded blank and an injection-molded plastic component ([0005], producing a multi-part object made of plastic and Figure 2. Limitations directed toward the capabilities or intended uses of the apparatus are given patentable weight to the extent which effects the structure of the apparatus. MPEP 2114), the injection molding device (Figure 1) comprising:
a. a first outer mold half (Figure 1, first mold half 2) comprising a first outer side face (see annotated Figure 1) and a second outer mold half (Figure 1, third mold half 4) which is arranged displaceable with respect to the first outer mold half in a first direction between an open position and a closed position (Figure 1 and [0016], the third mold half 4 is attached to a second machine plate 8 which is arranged so as to be displaceable along bars 9 in the y-direction, which is the first direction, and movement is indicated by arrow B) and comprising a second outer side face (see annotated Figure 1); and
b. a center block (Figure 1, second mold half 3) arranged, with respect to the first direction (Figure 1, Armbruster has first direction labeled as y-direction), between the first and the second outer mold half (Figure 1, the second mold half 3 is arranged between the first mold half 2 and the second mold half 4 along the y-axis) and in the open position of the injection molding device being rotatable around a center axis (the second mold half 3 rotated around the z-axis by angle W and [0027]) arranged perpendicular with respect to the first direction (Figure 1, z-direction is perpendicular with respect to the fire direction, which is y-direction);
c. the center block (Figure 2, second mold half 3) comprising at least one pair of center block side faces (Figure 2, the second mold half 3 comprises four side surfaces 16, which are arranged parallel in pairs [0025]) each carrying an inner mold half interacting in a closed position of the injection molding device in a first separation plane (see annotated Figure 1) with the first outer mold half (Figure 2 and [0025]), and in a second separation plane (see annotated Figure 1), respectively, with the second outer mold half (Figure 2 and [0025])) forming in the closed position at least one first cavity and at least one second cavity (Figure 2, cavities 13 and 14).
d. in the closed position of the injection molding device forming at least one compartment to receive liquefied plastic material to form a plastic component interconnecting to the blank ([0028]) along at least one pair of adjacent edges (Figure 3, the product part 27 comprises at least one pair of adjacent edges implied that the structure attached to the surface of the second mold half 3 also comprise at least one pair of adjacent edges in order to form a product with the same shape).
Armbruster fails to explicitly teach at least one of the first and/or the second cavity comprising at least one clamping means to clamp and position the at least one folded blank.
However, Armbruster teaches one or more plastics are injected into the cavities 13 and 14 to formed first and second parts 26, 27 [0028]. The cavities 13 and 14 are the result of the surface of the first mold half 2 and the surface of the second mold half 3 combine together. As the surface of the second mold half 3 comprises of a structure that is used to shape the product, which is structurally equivalent to blank, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the presence of a clamping means to clamp/connect/hold/position the structure to the surface of the second mold half 3 in order to form a product with a desired shape without the product falling off the mold prior to the completion of the modeling. Furthermore, the apparatus disclosed by Armbruster is capable of being used as intended as discussed above and thus meets all of the structural limitations as claimed. Limitations directed toward the capabilities or intended uses of the apparatus are given patentable weight to the extent which effects the structure of the apparatus. MPEP 2114. In this case, the apparatus disclosed by Armbruster is capable of forming a folded blank based on the shape of the mold.
PNG
media_image2.png
560
608
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 2, Armbruster teaches the injection molding device according to claim 1, wherein in the closed position of the injection molding device the at least one first cavity and/or the least one second cavity (Figure 2, cavities 13 and 14) is formed by a convex core and an operatively associated concave recess (Figure 1 and annotated Figure 2, and [0028], when the injection molding device 1 is closed, the first and second cavity halves 17, 18 of the second mold half 3 together with the third and fourth cavity halves 29, 30 of the first mold half 2 form first and second cavities 13, 14 of a first processing area 22. Thus, at least one of the cavity halves 17, 18 or the cavity halves 29, 30 must be convex while the other being concave to formed the cavities 13 and 14. In order words, in order to form the products 26, 27 having the depicted geometry including hollows, depressions, etc. as shown in Figure 3, the mating mold half must have a corresponding convex feature.).
Regarding Claim 3, Armbruster teaches the injection molding device according to claim 2, wherein the concave recess is arranged on a side face of the center block and a thereto operatively associated convex core is arranged on a side face of at least one outer mold half (Figure 1 and see annotated Figure 2, and [0028], when the injection molding device 1 is closed, the first and second cavity halves 17, 18 of the second mold half 3 together with the third and fourth cavity halves 29, 30 of the first mold half 2 form first and second cavities 13, 14 of a first processing area 22. Thus, at least one of the cavity halves 17, 18 or the cavity halves 29, 30 must be convex while the other being concave to formed the cavities 13 and 14. In this case, the cavity halves 29 of the first mold half 2 is convex core and the cavity 17 of the second mold half 3 is concave recess. In order words, in order to form the products 26, 27 having the depicted geometry including hollows, depressions, etc. as shown in Figure 3, the mating mold half must have a corresponding convex feature).
Regarding Claim 5, Armbruster teaches the injection molding device according to claim 2, wherein the at least one clamping means in the closed position is formed between the convex core and the concave recess (see annotated Figure 2 above, one or more plastics are injected into the cavities 13 and 14 to formed first and second parts 26, 27 [0028]. The cavities 13 and 14 are the result of the surface of the first mold half 2 and the surface of the second mold half 3 combine together. As the surface of the second mold half 3 comprises of a structure that is used to shape the product, which is structurally equivalent to blank, thus, it is implied that a clamping means is present to clamp/connect the structure to the surface of the second mold half 3 in order to form product with a desired shape) by at least one protrusion arranged on the convex core (see annotated Figure 2 above, a protrusion is arranged around the convex core in a circumferential direction) and/or the concave recess in the closed position temporarily clamping the blank between the convex core and the concave recess (see annotated Figures 2 and 3, one or more plastics are injected into the cavities 13 and 14 to formed first and second parts 26, 27 [0028]. Since the parts 26 and 27 are formed based on the shape of the cavities 13, 14, the surface of the second mold half 3 formed a mold, which is structurally equivalent to blank, and it is implied that a clamping means is present to clamp the mold to the surface of the second mold half 3.
Regarding Claim 6, Armbruster teaches the injection molding device according to claim 5, wherein the at least one protrusion is arranged circumferential on the convex core (see annotated Figure 2 above, a protrusion is arranged circumferential on the convex core) and/or the concave recess delimiting the at least one compartment for the liquefied plastic material ([0028]).
Regarding Claim 7, Armbruster teaches the injection molding device according to claim 2, wherein the convex core and/ or the concave recess comprises holding means to temporarily hold the blank at the thereto related side face of center block during rotation (see annotated Figure 2 above, one or more plastics are injected into the cavities 13 and 14 to formed first and second parts 26, 27 [0028]. The cavities 13 and 14 are the result of the surface of the first mold half 2 and the surface of the second mold half 3 combine together. As the surface of the second mold half 3 comprises of a structure that is used to shape the product, which is structurally equivalent to blank, thus, it is implied that a clamping means is present to hold/grasp/grip/carry the structure to the surface of the second mold half 3 in order to form product with a desired shape).
Regarding Claim 8, Armbruster teaches the injection molding device according to claim 7, wherein the holding means are formed as a suction means and/or clamping means (see annotated Figures 2 and 3, one or more plastics are injected into the cavities 13 and 14 to formed first and second parts 26, 27 [0028]. Since the parts 26 and 27 are formed based on the shape of the cavities 13, 14, The cavities 13 and 14 are the result of the surface of the first mold half 2 and the surface of the second mold half 3 combine together. As the surface of the second mold half 3 comprises of a structure that is used to shape the product, which is structurally equivalent to blank, thus, it is implied that a clamping means is present to clamp/connect the structure to the surface of the second mold half 3 in order to form product with a desired shape) and/or friction means.
Regarding Claim 9, Armbruster teaches the injection molding device according to claim 1, wherein the at least one compartment has a cage-like structure extending along the at least one pair of adjacent edges of the blank (Figures 3 and 4, product 26 is a cage-like structure extending along the at least one pair of adjacent edges of the mold. Since the product 26 is shape complementary to the structure on the surface of the second mold half 3, the structure on the surface of the second mold half 3 will also has at least one pair of adjacent edges).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
The Applicant argues Armbruster fails to teach a folded blank that forms part of a manufactured composite product. Further, Armbruster cannot teach or suggest the features associated with the processing of the folded blank.
The Examiner respectfully disagreed. Firstly, the Examiner wishes to point out the application claims are directed towards an apparatus and as such will be examined under such conditions. The Applicant is reminded that apparatus claims are not limited by the function they perform, as per MPEP §2114. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. As the apparatus of the prior art and the claimed apparatus are patentably indistinguishable in terms of structure, the apparatus of the prior art is reasonably expected to be able to perform the claimed functionalities. Furthermore, Applicant is reminded that apparatus claims are not limited by the material worked upon as per MPEP §2115). In this case, the folded blank is part of the product manufactured by the claimed apparatus and it is not part of the claimed apparatus. Armbruster discloses an apparatus that is capable of being used as intended as discussed above (see above for rejection of claim 1) and thus meets all of the structural limitations as claimed. Limitations directed toward the capabilities or intended uses of the apparatus are given patentable weight to the extent which effects the structure of the apparatus. MPEP 2114.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 XINWEN (Cindy) YE whose telephone number is (571)272-3010. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 8:30 - 17:00.
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, Susan Leong can be reached at (571) 270-1487. 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.
XINWEN (CINDY) YE
Examiner
Art Unit 1754
/SUSAN D LEONG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1754