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 .
Response to Arguments
The examiner acknowledges that the amended claim set corrects the issues noted by the previous office action of (10 – 17 – 2025). All of the previous claim objection, 112 rejections have been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments and remarks filed (1 – 13 – 2026) have been fully considered but they are not persuasiveApplicant argues…
Brune does not teach fabricating a packing member.
Brune is not analogous art, Brune is not directed to the same technology area such that the skilled person looking to prepare a mould for the manufacturing of packing members would not look to this document.
Brune does not teach the sequence of the molding going from an open position in which the first and second parts are at least partially spaced such that the reservoir member forms a reservoir cavity
to a partially closed position in which the location of the reservoir cavity has moved with respect to the mould cavity and/or the volume of the reservoir cavity has reduced.
then to a closed position in which the first and second parts are engaged such that the mould cavity is closed.
Applicant further argues that none of the other applied references make up for the deficiency of Brune / Brune as modified.
Brune does not teach the newly amended feature of a packing member from a liquid ceramic composition.
This is not found to be persuasive because…
As noted in the previous action of (10 – 17 – 2025) applicant’s argument directed towards the mold fabricating a packing member is verbiage that is found within the preamble of the claim. As such, applicant’s arguments rely on language solely recited in preamble recitations in claim(s) 1. When reading the preamble in the context of the entire claim, the recitation A mould for manufacturing a packing member is not limiting because the body of the claim describes a complete invention, and the language recited solely in the preamble does not provide any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations. Thus, the preamble of the claim(s) is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction. See Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 182 F.3d 1298, 1305, 51 USPQ2d 1161, 1165 (Fed. Cir. 1999). See MPEP § 2111.02. Additionally, applicant’s claims are directed to a mold, namely an apparatus. As such, the implementing and using the mold to fabricate a particular article, namely a packing member is understood to be intended use of the mold. Accordingly, It is well settled that the intended use of a claimed apparatus is not germane to the issue of the patentability of the claimed structure. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the claimed use then it meets the claim. In re Casey, 152 USPQ 235, 238 (CCPA 1967); In re Otto, 136 USPQ 459 (CCPA 1963). The manner or method in which a machine is to be utilized is not germane to the issue of patentability of the machine itself, In re Casey 152 USPQ 235. Intended use has been continuously held not to be germane to determining the patentability of the apparatus, In re Finsterwalder, 168 USPQ 530.
In response to applicant's argument that Brune is nonanalogous art, it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, Brune is understood to be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor, namely a mold capable of containing and shaping a liquid composition. Consequently, Brune is also reasonably pertinent to the particular problem i.e, providing an alternative method for extrusion, pelleting or granulation of ceramic powder followed by calcination of the green body. Where it has been found that such methods can only offer restricted support geometry and physical properties. For example, such supports may achieve high strength, but only at the expense of low geometric surface area and poor porosity, as detail in ([0004] – [0005]) of applicant’s specification. Accordingly, Brune is pertinent to the particular problem by providing said alternative method which is not extrusion, pelleting or granulation of ceramic powder / liquid ceramic composition followed by calcination of the green body.
Regarding the opening state Brune teaches on ([0027]) teaches that as the pressure builds, the mold halves 14 are allowed to separate such that the mold is in a partially open position, as shown in (Fig. 3). As such, the mould is operable to be moved from an open position as illustrated in (Fig. 3) in which space 38 is provided between the mold halves 14 such that they are at least partially spaced, with support pins 28 shown to be forming a reservoir cavity area within the cavity space 36.
Regarding the partially closed position ([0029]) teaching that the injection of cover material 32 is preferably continued from between the mold halves 14, with the mold 12 partially open. When sufficient cover material 32 has been injected into the mold cavity 20 to support the core 10 substantially centrally in the mold cavity 20, in the preferred predetermined position, the support pins 28 are retracted from the core 10 and the cavity 20, as shown in (Fig. 4). As illustrated in (Fig. 4), the space 36 remaining in the cavity 20 left behind as support pins 28 are retracted is found to be filled-in as cover material fronts 40 traverse and the material 32 fills the space 36 remaining in the cavity 20 / reservoir cavity area formed by the support pins 28. As such, the support pins 28 act as applicant’s reservoir forming member that is operable to receive and hold the liquid composition. As such, the mould is operable to be moved to a partially closed position in which the location of the reservoir cavity has moved with respect to the mould cavity and/or the volume of the reservoir cavity has reduced.
Regarding the a closed position ([0030]) teaches that as illustrated in (Fig. 5), the mold halves 14 are then compressed towards each other, back to the closed mold position, to compression mold the cover material 32, which is preferably still substantially in a molten state. As such, the mold is moved to closed position in which the mold halves are engaged at engagement surfaces 18 such that the mould cavity is closed
This is unpersuasive because as explained above there was not found to be deficiency in Brune / Brune as modified.
Applicant’s same arguments and remarks, see (Pgs. 2 – 3), filed on (1 – 13 – 2026), with respect to the amended feature(s) of claim(s) 1 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Gary Brune (US 20010038167 A1, hereinafter Brune) in view of Sullivan et al. ( US 6612939 B1, hereinafter Sullivan).
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the a closed position in which the first and second parts are engaged such that the mould cavity is closed must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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.
A.) Claim(s) 1 – 6 & 8 – 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gary Brune (US 20010038167 A1, hereinafter Brune) in view of Sullivan et al. ( US 6612939 B1, hereinafter Sullivan)Regarding claim 1,
A mould for manufacturing a packing member from a liquid ceramic composition, the mould comprising
a first part and
a second part,
wherein the first part and/or the second part comprise an open mould cavity and
wherein the first and second parts are operable to engage to form a closed mould cavity,
wherein the mould further comprises a reservoir forming member that is operable to receive and hold the liquid ceramic composition, and
wherein the mould is operable to be moved from an open position in which the first and second parts are at least partially spaced such that the reservoir forming member forms a reservoir cavity and the mould cavity is open,
to a partially closed position in which the location of the reservoir cavity has moved with respect to the mould cavity and/or the volume of the reservoir cavity has reduced, and
then to a closed position in which the first and second parts are engaged such that the mould cavity is closed.
Brune teaches the following:
While following verbiage regarding the mould being utilized to manufacturing a packing member is found in the preamble. Brune teaches on([0023]) that the nozzles 30 are configured to inject molten layer material, which in the preferred embodiment is cover material 32. The cover material 32 is injected into the mold cavity 20 through the gates 29 at a parting line 34 where the mold halves 14 abut. As such, the use of a liquid layer by injection molding is understood to be disclosed. Accordingly, the preamble is not a limitation on the claims if it merely states the purpose or intended use, and the remainder of the claim completely defines invention independent of preamble. On the other hand, if claims cannot be read independently of preamble, and preamble must be read to give meaning to claim or is essential to point out the invention, it constitutes a claim limitation. Stewart-Warner Corp v. City of Pontiac, Mich. 219 USPQ 1162; Marston v. J.C. Penny Co., Inc. 148 USPQ 25; and Kropa v. Robie and Mahlman, 88 USPQ 478. Additionally, applicant’s claims are directed to a mold, namely an apparatus. As such, the implementing and using the mold to fabricate a particular article, namely a packing member is understood to be intended use of the mold. Accordingly, It is well settled that the intended use of a claimed apparatus is not germane to the issue of the patentability of the claimed structure. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the claimed use then it meets the claim. In re Casey, 152 USPQ 235, 238 (CCPA 1967); In re Otto, 136 USPQ 459 (CCPA 1963). The manner or method in which a machine is to be utilized is not germane to the issue of patentability of the machine itself, In re Casey 152 USPQ 235. Intended use has been continuously held not to be germane to determining the patentability of the apparatus, In re Finsterwalder, 168 USPQ 530.
& b.) ([0019]) teaches referring to (Figs. 1 & 2), a body, which is a golf ball core 10 in the preferred embodiment, is placed into a mold 12. The mold 12 includes opposing mold portions, defined by two mold halves 14. Each mold half 14, in turn, defines a corresponding substantially hemispherical cavity 16 and has a mating surface 18 surrounding the hemispherical cavity 16 and facing the opposing mold half 14. Where each respective mold half 14 act as applicant’s first and second mold part.
As illustrated in (Fig. 1), the mold halves are found to form and have an open mould cavity with a core 10 being placed within. ([0021]) teaching that support pins 28 extend through each mold half 14, into the mold cavity 20. The support pins 28 are configured to support the core 10 in a predetermined position within the mold cavity 20 when the core 10 is placed against them. As such, each mold half 14 is found to comprise an open mould cavity.
As illustrated in (Fig. 2), mold halves are found to form a closed mold cavity when placed together. ([0019]) teaching that each mold half 14, in turn, defines a corresponding substantially hemispherical cavity 16 and has a mating surface 18 surrounding the hemispherical cavity 16 and facing the opposing mold half 14. When the mold halves 14 are brought together with the mating surfaces 18 in full contact with each other, the two hemispherical cavities 16 together define a substantially spherical mold cavity 20. ([0021]) teaching that support pins 28 extend through each mold half 14, into the mold cavity 20. The support pins 28 are configured to support the core 10 in a predetermined position within the mold cavity 20 when the core 10 is placed against them. As such, each mold half 14 are operable to engage to form a closed mould cavity defined by the engagement of mating surfaces 18.
([0026]) teaches that (Fig. 2) shows the core 10 held concentrically within the mold cavity 20 by the support pins 28. As the cover material 32 is injected into the mold cavity 20, the material 32 flows around the core 10, through a space 36 remaining between the core 10 and the inner surfaces of the mold halves 14, and air vents from the cavity 20 through vents 27. ([0029]) teaching Injection of cover material 32 is preferably continued from between the mold halves 14, with the mold 12 partially open. When sufficient cover material 32 has been injected into the mold cavity 20 to support the core 10 substantially centrally in the mold cavity 20, in the preferred predetermined position, the support pins 28 are retracted from the core 10 and the cavity 20, as shown in (Fig. 4). As illustrated in (Fig. 4), the space 36 remaining in the cavity 20 left behind as support pins 28 are retracted is found to be filled-in as cover material fronts 40 traverse and the material 32 fills the space 36 remaining in the cavity 20 / reservoir cavity area formed by the support pins 28. As such, the support pins 28 act as applicant’s reservoir forming member that is operable to receive and hold the liquid composition.
([0027]) teaches that as the pressure builds, the mold halves 14 are allowed to separate such that the mold is in a partially open position, as shown in (Fig. 3). As such, the mould is operable to be moved from an open position as illustrated in (Fig. 3) in which space 38 is provided between the mold halves 14 such that they are at least partially separated, with support pins 28 shown to be forming a reservoir cavity area within the cavity space 36.
([0029]) teaches that as illustrated in (Fig. 4), the injection of cover material 32 is preferably continued from between the mold halves 14, with the mold 12 partially open. When sufficient cover material 32 has been injected into the mold cavity 20 to support the core 10 substantially centrally in the mold cavity 20, in the preferred predetermined position, the support pins 28 are retracted from the core 10 and the cavity 20, as shown in (Fig. 4). As illustrated in (Fig. 4), the space 36 remaining in the cavity 20 left behind as support pins 28 are retracted is found to be filled-in as cover material fronts 40 traverse and the material 32 fills the space 36 remaining in the cavity 20 / reservoir cavity area formed by the support pins 28. As such, the retraction of support pins 28 act as applicant’s partially closed position in which the location of the reservoir cavity has moved with respect to the mould cavity and/or the volume of the reservoir cavity has reduced. i.e. filled with material.
([0030]) teaches that as illustrated in (Fig. 5), the mold halves 14 are then compressed towards each other, back to the closed mold position, to compression mold the cover material 32, which is preferably still substantially in a molten state. As such, this also provides for the volume of the reservoir cavity to be reduced, and the mould is operable to be moved to a closed position in which the first and second parts are engaged via mating surfaces 18 such that the mould cavity is closed. As such, this provides for a closed position in which the mold halves 14 are engaged via mating surfaces 18 such that the mould cavity is closed.
Regarding Claim 1, Brune also teaching that the cover material is preferably a material such as engineering type resins and/or polymers, ([0024]). Brune is silent on the liquid composition comprise a ceramic liquid composition. In analogous art for the production of a mold cavity assembly that utilizes a core element that is injection molded, (Abstract), Sullivan suggests details regarding the composition of the cover material of the core, and in this regard, Sullivan teaches the following:
(Col. 34, lines 50 – 64) teaches that additional materials may be added to the polymeric outer cover 10 including dyes (for example, Ultramarine Blue Sold by Whitaker, Clark and Daniels of South Plainsfield, N.J.) (see U.S. Pat. No. 4,679,795 herein incorporated by reference); optical brighteners, pigments such as titanium dioxide, zinc oxide, barium sulfate and Zinc sulfate glass fibers and inorganic fillers, amongst other additives. (Col. 35, lines 5 – 10) noting that a simple dry blend of the pelletized or granulated resins and color additives may be prepared and fed directly into an injection molding machine where homogenization occurs in the mold. As such, the liquid composition utilized to from exterior polymeric outer cover 10 is understood to comprise ceramics optical brighteners and pigments including titanium dioxide, zinc oxide, barium sulfate.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the production method and apparatus for manufacturing a molding a layer around a body within a mold, in which the body is positioned within a mold cavity defined by opposing mold portions of the mold, to leave a cavity space between the body and the mold portions at least partially surrounding the body of Brune. By modifying the polymeric outer cover composition to include ceramic additives, as taught by Sullivan. Highlighting, one would be motivated to include ceramic additives in the polymeric outer cover composition as it provides for tailoring the color and brightness of the polymeric outer cover fabricated, (Col. 34, lines 50 – 64). Additionally, the use of a known material, i.e., polymeric outer cover with ceramic additives, in a known environment, namely a liquid composition that is injection molded, for its intended purposes, specifically forming an exterior cover for a core provides for the recitation of known material in the art case law. Where, the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination. Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945), MPEP 2144.07.
Regarding claim 2 as applied to claim 1,
Wherein the first and second parts each comprise an open mould cavity.
Brune teaches the following:
([0019[) teaches referring to (Figs. 1 and 2), a body, which is a golf ball core 10 in the preferred embodiment, is placed into a mold 12. The mold 12 includes opposing mold portions, defined by two mold halves 14. Each mold half 14, in turn, defines a corresponding substantially hemispherical cavity 16 and has a mating surface 18 surrounding the hemispherical cavity 16 and facing the opposing mold half 14. Where each respective mold half 14 act as applicant’s first and second mold part.
Regarding claim 3 as applied to claim 2,
Wherein the mould cavities of the first and second parts are open partial mould cavities and
the first and second parts of the mould are operable to engage such that the partial mould cavity of the first part aligns with the partial mould cavity of the second part to form a closed enlarged mould cavity.
Brune teaches the following:
([0019]) teaches referring to (Figs. 1 and 2), a body, which is a golf ball core 10 in the preferred embodiment, is placed into a mold 12. The mold 12 includes opposing mold portions, defined by two mold halves 14. Each mold half 14, in turn, defines a corresponding substantially hemispherical cavity 16 and has a mating surface 18 surrounding the hemispherical cavity 16 and facing the opposing mold half 14. Where each respective mold half 14 act as applicant’s first and second mold part. As illustrated in (Fig. 1), each of the first and second parts are shown to be open partial moulds with a hemispherical cavity that allows for positioning of the mold core 10 within the hemispherical cavity 16 .
As illustrated in (Fig. 2), each of the first and second parts are shown to be capable of closing such that they engage such that the partial mould cavity of the first part aligns with the partial mould cavity of the second part to form a closed enlarged mould cavity 20.
Regarding claim 4 as applied to claim 1,
Wherein the first and/or the second parts comprise a plurality of open mould cavities.
Brune teaches the following:
([0034]) teaches that mold halve 42 of FIG. 6 employs a hot-to-cold runner system, in which nozzle 46 is placed against the mold half 42 to inject cover material 32 through internal, hot runner 48 within the mold half 42 to runner 50 in the parting line between the upper and lower mold halves. Runner 50 feeds ten injection gates 52 surrounding each dimpled half-mold cavity 54. As illustrated in (Fig. 6) mold halve 42 is provided with a hot runner 48 which leads into two hemispherical partial mold cavities 54, as such each of the first and/or second parts comprise a plurality of open partial mould cavities.
Regarding claim 5 as applied to claim 1,
Wherein the mould cavity comprises texturing that is operable to produce surface structures on the packing member.
Brune teaches the following:
([0019]) teaches that the mold halves 14, defining the hemispherical cavities 16, include a negative dimple pattern with a plurality of protrusions 23 that form dimples in the finished golf ball cover. As illustrated in (Figs. 1 – 2) the molding surface of the cavities 16 / cavity 20 is found to have a plurality of protrusions 23 that form dimples / texturing that is operable to produce surface structuring on the on the article formed.
Regarding claim 6 as applied to claim 1,
Wherein the reservoir forming member comprises a first reservoir member arranged on the first mould part and
a second reservoir member arranged on the second mould part,
wherein the first and second reservoir members are operable to cooperatively engage to form a reservoir cavity.
Brune teaches the following:
& b.) As illustrated in (Figs. 1 – 4), a first set of support pins 28 / reservoir member are found to be arranged on the first mould part, while a second set support pins 28 / reservoir member are found to be on the second mould part.
As illustrated in (Figs. 3 – 4), as the support pins 28 are retracted from the core 10 the cavity / reservoir cavity left behind is found to fill-in as cover material fronts 40 as the material 32 fills the space 36 remaining in the cavity 20 / reservoir cavity area formed by the support pins 28. Highlighting, that both sets of reservoir members / support pins 28 in their respective mould parts are found to cooperatively engage and disengage to support the core 10 and to form a reservoir cavity / pocket left behind that is understood to be plugged by the flow front of material.
Regarding claim 8 as applied to claim 1,
Wherein the first and/or second mould part comprises side reservoir members extending along opposing sides of the mould cavity of the mould part.
Brune teaches the following:
As illustrated in (Figs. 1 – 4) as a first set of support pins 28 / reservoir member are found to be arranged on the first mould part, while a second set support pins 28 / reservoir member are found to be on the second mould part that extending along opposing sides of the mould cavity of the mould part.
Regarding claim 9 as applied to claim 1,
Wherein the first and/or second mould part comprises a base reservoir member.
Brune teaches the following:
As illustrated in (Figs. 1 – 4), a first set of support pins 28 / reservoir member are found to be arranged on the first mould part, while a second set support
PNG
media_image1.png
408
468
media_image1.png
Greyscale
pins 28 / reservoir member are found to be on the second mould part that extending along opposing sides of the mould cavity of the mould part. In particular, (Fig. 1) shows that the plurality of support pins 28 / reservoir members are arrange such that central / a base reservoir member (single downward facing arrow) is found to extending between two side reservoir members (two upwards facing arrows).
B.) Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brune in view of Sullivan and in further view of Nakagawa et al. (US 20130154156 A1, hereinafter Nakagawa)
Regarding claim 7 as applied to claim 6,
Wherein the first and second reservoir members comprise male and female reservoir members.
Brune teaches the following:
([0021]) teaches that as illustrated in (Figs. 1), the mold has ten parallel support pins 28, five in each mold half 14 are provided. Other types of support members may also be employed in alternative embodiments. Highlighting as illustrated across (Figs. 1 – 2), the support pins 28 are found to comprise an elongated upright stem / stock with a flat surface used to support core 10. Where the upright stem / stock is found to provide for a male reservoir member.
Regarding Claim 7, Brune as modified by Sullivan is silent on the first and second reservoir members comprise female reservoir members. In analogous art to produce a ball mold body having a plurality of mold parts including support pins extending into the cavity to support a center sphere, (Abstract), Nakagawa suggests details regarding the support pins extending into the cavity to support a center sphere comprising a female reservoir members, and in this regard, Nakagawa teaches the following:
([0051]) teaches that the end face of the pin body 41 has a cross-sectional shape wherein three dimple-forming protrusions 43 a are arranged in the form of an equilateral triangle, one dimple-forming protrusion 43 b is added on the outside of each of these three dimple-forming protrusions 43 a, and a land region 44 (a region corresponding to, on the surface of the molded ball, lands where dimples are not formed) of a given width is provided between each of these six dimple-forming protrusions 43 a and 43 b and a peripheral edge of the end face. Hence, the peripheral edge of the pin body 41 has curved areas which follow the margins of the respective dimple-forming protrusions 43 a and 43 b, and has a shape in which these mutually adjoining curved areas are connected by gently curved lines Highlighting, ([0040]) adding) the endface of the pin body 41 is found to form a concave features which correspond to the convex features of the core / center sphere 31, this is best illustrated in (Figs. 1 – 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the production method and apparatus for manufacturing a molding a layer around a body within a mold, in which the body is positioned within a mold cavity defined by opposing mold portions of the mold, to leave a cavity space between the body and the mold portions at least partially surrounding the body of Brune as modified by Sullivan. By further modifying the mold to comprise pin supports with a pin body 41 that has an endface with a shape that is concave, as taught by Nakagawa. Highlighting, one would be motivated to implement a pin body with an endface shape that is concave as it provides for reducing the formation of uneven flash caused by deflection and shifting of the support pin, the occurrence of appearance defects in the molded article that arise due to damage to the inner wall side of the cavity and contamination of the molded article due to rubbing debris can all be minimized, enabling the maintenance period and life of the mold to be further extended. ([0088]).C.) Claim(s) 8 – 9, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brune in view of Sullivan and in further view of Koyama et al. (US 20020017732 A1, hereinafter Koyama)Regarding claim 8 as applied to claim 1,
Wherein the first and/or second mould part comprises side reservoir members extending along opposing sides of the mould cavity of the mould part.
Regarding Claim 8, Brune as modified by Sullivan is silent on the first and/or second mould part comprises side reservoir members extending along opposing sides of the mould cavity of the mould part. In analogous art to an injection molded article that has a core suspended within the middle of the article while being molded, the suspend core being suspending by support pins extending into the cavity, (Abstract), Koyama suggests details regarding the support pins comprising side reservoir members extending along opposing sides of the mould cavity of the mould part, and in this regard, Koyama teaches the following:
([0090]) teaches that as illustrated in (Fig. 6) The hold pins 2 are movable into and from the cavity 13. Each of the hold pins 2 is driven by an air cylinder (a pneumatic actuator) between first and second positions. It should be noted that the air cylinder corresponds to the pneumatic or hydraulic cylinder 95. The first positions of the hold pins 2 correspond to projected positions at which front ends of the hold pins 2 hold an insert 5 in the cavity 13. When the hold pins 2 assume the second positions, the front ends of the hold pins 2 are flash with the walls of the upper die 11 and the lower die 12. The second positions of the hold pins 2 are also referred to as the retracted positions.([0100]) adding that the molten resin 57 is solidified. Subsequently, the hold pins 52 are further moved back from the retracted positions as shown in FIG. 18, and the die set is opened to allow the removal of the casting (the molding) therefrom. Highlighting, as illustrated in (Fig. 18) the hold pins 2 / reservoir members are found to be on the side of the mold, thus providing for side hold pins 2 / side reservoir members extending along opposing sides of the mould cavity of the mould part.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the production method and apparatus for manufacturing a molding a layer around a body within a mold, in which the body is positioned within a mold cavity defined by opposing mold portions of the mold, to leave a cavity space between the body and the mold portions at least partially surrounding the body of Brune as modified by Sullivan. By further modifying the mold to comprise hold pins formed as side reservoir members extending along opposing sides of the mould cavity of the mould part, as taught by Koyama. Highlighting, one would be motivated to implement support pins comprising side reservoir members extending along opposing sides of the mould cavity of the mould part as it provides for improved apparatus for forming an insert-added casting ([0008]). Accordingly, the use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way and/or the application of a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results provides for the recitation of KSR case law. Where, "A person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known option within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense." KSR int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007), MPEP 2143.
Regarding claim 9 as applied to claim 1,
Wherein the first and/or second mould part comprises a base reservoir member.
Brune teaches the following:
PNG
media_image2.png
408
468
media_image2.png
Greyscale
As illustrated in (Figs. 1 – 4), a first set of support pins 28 / reservoir member are found to be arranged on the first mould part, while a second set support pins 28 / reservoir member are found to be on the second mould part that extending along opposing sides of the mould cavity of the mould part. In particular, (Fig. 1) shows that the plurality of support pins 28 / reservoir members are arrange such that central / a base reservoir member (single downward facing arrow) is found to extending between two side reservoir members (two upwards facing arrows).
Regarding Claim 9, Brune as modified by Sullivan is silent on the first and/or second mould part comprises side reservoir members extending along opposing sides of the mould cavity of the mould part. In analogous art to an injection molded article that has a core suspended within the middle of the article while being molded, the suspend core being suspending by support pins extending into the cavity, (Abstract), Koyama suggests details regarding the support pins comprising side reservoir members extending along opposing sides of the mould cavity of the mould part, and in this regard, Koyama teaches the following:
PNG
media_image3.png
546
696
media_image3.png
Greyscale
([0090]) teaches that as illustrated in (Fig. 6) The hold pins 2 are movable into and from the cavity 13. Each of the hold pins 2 is driven by an air cylinder (a pneumatic actuator) between first and second positions. It should be noted that the air cylinder corresponds to the pneumatic or hydraulic cylinder 95. The first positions of the hold pins 2 correspond to projected positions at which front ends of the hold pins 2 hold an insert 5 in the cavity 13. When the hold pins 2 assume the second positions, the front ends of the hold pins 2 are flash with the walls of the upper die 11 and the lower die 12. The second positions of the hold pins 2 are also referred to as the retracted positions.Highlighting, as illustrated in (Fig. 48) the two set of hold pins 202 / reservoir members are found to be on the side of the mold, thus providing for side hold pins 202 / side reservoir members extending along opposing sides of the mould cavity of the mould part, while another single set of hold pins 208 are found on the base thus providing for base hold pins 208 /base reservoir members that extend between side hold pins 202 / side reservoir members.
The same rejection rationale, case law(s) and analysis that was used previously for claim 8, can be applied here and should be referred to for this claim as well.
D.) Claim(s) 8 – 9 & 12 – 14, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brune in view of Sullivan and in further view of Nickerson et al. (US 3068522 A, hereinafter Nickerson)
Regarding claim 8 as applied to claim 1,
Wherein the first and/or second mould part comprises side reservoir members extending along opposing sides of the mould cavity of the mould part.
Regarding Claim 8, Brune as modified by Sullivan is silent on the mold parts comprising side reservoir members. In analogous art to an injection molded article that has a core suspended within the middle of the article while being molded, the suspend core being suspending by support pins extending into the cavity, (Abstract), Nickerson suggests details regarding the first and/or second mould part comprises a base reservoir member, preferably a base reservoir member extending between side reservoir members, and in this regard, Nickerson teaches the following:
(Col. 2, lines 46 – 52) teaches that the push rod portion 20 of each retractable seat 13 is arranged to slide in a groove 22 provided in each of the dies 7 and 9 which in the closed mating position of the latter forms a complete bearing passageway for the reciprocation of the retractable seat as well as a vent for the escape of air from the cavities 12. Highlighting, as illustrated in (Figs. 1 – 3 & 8) the push rod portion 20 is shown to be placed on the side of the mold part in contact with the core 36.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the production method and apparatus for manufacturing a molding a layer around a body within a mold, in which the body is positioned within a mold cavity defined by opposing mold portions of the mold, to leave a cavity space between the body and the mold portions at least partially surrounding the body of Brune as modified by Sullivan. By further modifying the mold part(s) to comprises a push rod portion 20 located on the side of the mold parts, as taught by Nickerson. Highlighting, one would be motivated to implement mold part(s) that comprises a push rod portion located on the side of the mold parts as it provides for a retractable seat to thus center said spherical core body, (Col. 5, lines 57 – 59). Accordingly, while only a single push rod portion is illustrated, the case law for the duplication of parts may be recited. Where, the court held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced, In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960), MPEP 2144.
Regarding claim 9 as applied to claim 1,
Wherein the first and/or second mould part comprises a base reservoir member.
Regarding Claim 9, Brune as modified by Sullivan is silent on a base reservoir member, preferably a base reservoir member extending between side reservoir members. In analogous art to an injection molded article that has a core suspended within the middle of the article while being molded, the suspend core being suspending by support pins extending into the cavity, (Abstract), Nickerson suggests details regarding the first and/or second mould part comprises a base reservoir member, preferably a base reservoir member extending between side reservoir members, and in this regard, Nickerson teaches the following:
(Col. 2, lines 46 – 52) teaches that the push rod portion 20 of each retractable seat 13 is arranged to slide in a groove 22 provided in each of the dies 7 and 9 which in the closed mating position of the latter forms a complete bearing passageway for the reciprocation of the retractable seat as well as a vent for the escape of air from the cavities 12. Highlighting, as illustrated in (Figs. 1 – 3 & 8) the push rod portion 20 is shown to be placed on the side of the mold part in contact with the core 36.
The same rejection rationale, case law(s) and analysis that was used previously for claim 8, can be applied here and should be referred to for this claim as well.
Regarding claim 12 as applied to claim ,
Wherein the first and second mould parts comprise cooperating retaining members operable to assist with maintaining the alignment of the mould parts.
Regarding Claim 12, Brune as modified by Sullivan is silent on the mould parts comprise cooperating retaining members operable to assist with maintaining the alignment of the mould parts. In analogous art as applied above, Nickerson suggests details regarding the mould parts comprise cooperating retaining members operable to assist with maintaining the alignment of the mould parts, and in this regard, Nickerson teaches the following:
(Col. 2, lines 24 – 27) teaches that the lower die 7 is arranged to reciprocally move up and down on the slides 5 and is guided into mating alignment with the upper die 9 by the usual guide pins 10. Highlighting, that a hole is provided in the lower die 7 to accept the guide pins 10. Where the slides 5 with the base member 6 act as applicant’s cooperating retaining members operable assist with maintaining the alignment of the mould parts. Highlighting, as illustrated in (Fig. 1), the lower die 7 is shown to be affixed to the (two) slides 5 via the base member 6, which provides for maintaining alignment during the raising and lowering the die to mate with the upper die and form the cavity for molding.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the production method and apparatus for manufacturing a molding a layer around a body within a mold, in which the body is positioned within a mold cavity defined by opposing mold portions of the mold, to leave a cavity space between the body and the mold portions at least partially surrounding the body of Brune as modified by Sullivan. By further modifying the mold to comprise a cooperating retaining members operable to assist with maintaining the alignment of the mould parts, as taught by Nickerson. Highlighting, one would be motivated to implement a mould parts comprise cooperating retaining members operable to assist with maintaining the alignment of the mould parts as it provides for the die to reciprocally move up and down on the slides and guided into mating alignment with other portion of the mold to form the cavity, (Col. 2, lines 24 – 27). Accordingly, the use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way and/or the application of a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results provides for the recitation of KSR case law. Where, "A person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known option within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense." KSR int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007), MPEP 2143.
Regarding claim(s) 13 & 14 as applied to claim 1 & 13 respectively,
Wherein the first and/or second mould part comprises a reinforcing member.
Wherein the reinforcing member protrudes from the mould part to provide a guiding member.
Regarding Claim(s) 13 & 14, Brune as modified by Sullivan is silent on the mold comprising a part that consists of a reinforcing member. In analogous as applied above, Nickerson suggests details regarding the mold comprising a part that consists of a reinforcing member, and in this regard, Nickerson teaches the following:
& 14a.) (Col. 2, lines 24 – 27) teaches that the lower die 7 is arranged to reciprocally move up and down on the slides 5 and is guided into mating alignment with the upper die 9 by the usual guide pins 10. Highlighting, that a hole is provided in the lower die 7 to accept the guide pins 10. Where the guide pins 10 with matching holes act as applicant’s reinforcing member that protrudes from the mould part to provide a guiding member.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the production method and apparatus for manufacturing a molding a layer around a body within a mold, in which the body is positioned within a mold cavity defined by opposing mold portions of the mold, to leave a cavity space between the body and the mold portions at least partially surrounding the body of Brune as modified by Sullivan. By further modifying the mold to comprise a part that consists of a reinforcing member, as taught by Nickerson. Highlighting, one would be motivated to implement a mold comprising a part that consists of a reinforcing member as it provides for the two mold haves to be guided into coupling while maintain alignment with the upper die, (Col. 2, lines 24 – 27). Accordingly, the use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way and/or the application of a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results provides for the recitation of KSR case law. Where, "A person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known option within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense." KSR int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007), MPEP 2143.
E.) Claim(s) 10, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brune in view of Sullivan and in further view of Kasashima et al. (US 20140175699 A1, hereinafter Kasashima)Regarding claim 10 as applied to claim 1,
Wherein the first and/or second mould part is resiliently deformable.
Regarding Claim 10, Brune is silent on the first and/or second mould part is resiliently deformable. In analogous art to an injection molded article that has a core suspended within the middle of the article while being molded, the suspend core being suspending by support pins extending into the cavity, (Abstract), Kasashima suggests details regarding the first and/or second mould part is resiliently deformable, and in this regard, Kasashima teaches the following:
([0037]) teaches that no particular limitation is imposed on the material used to make the inventive mold for injection-molding a golf ball, although a known steel material may be suitably used. Accordingly, the use of steel as a material to fabricate the mold for injection-molding provides for a mold parts that are mould part is resiliently deformable, namely, when subjected to stress within its elastic limit, typically around 285 – 295 MPa, providing for steel to temporarily deform and return to its original shape when the stress is removed, where this type of elastic deformation is similarly to a stretched rubber band springing back to its original length versus permanent deformation where the steel does not return to its original shape.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the production method and apparatus for manufacturing a molding a layer around a body within a mold, in which the body is positioned within a mold cavity defined by opposing mold portions of the mold, to leave a cavity space between the body and the mold portions at least partially surrounding the body of Brune. By modifying the mold to be fabricated from steel, as taught by Kasashima. Highlighting, one would be motivated to implement a mold fabricated from steel as it provides for a material to fabricate a mold used to form an article with a core, ([0037]). Accordingly, the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination, Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945), MPEP 2144.07.
F.) Claim(s) 11, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brune in view of Sullivan and in further view of Uddeholm (Steels for Moulds, 2014)Regarding claim 11 as applied to claim 1,
Wherein the material forming the first and/or second mould part has a shrinkage rate of up to 1%,
wherein shrinkage rate is the amount of dimensional change over a period of 1 week.
Regarding Claim 11, Brune is silent on the first and/or second mould being fabricated from a material that has a shrinkage rate of up to 1%. In analogous art for moulds utilized in injection moulding (Pg. 18), Uddeholm suggests details regarding the first and/or second mould being fabricated from a material that has a shrinkage rate of up to 1 %, and in this regard, Uddeholm teaches the following:
(Pg. 9, Uddeholm Corrosion Resistant Mould Steels, ¶4) teaches that Corrax is a precipitation hardening mould steel with un-matched corrosion resistance, easy heat treatment and good weldability. (Pg. 11, How to Deal with Dimensional Changes) teaches that Corrax needs only an aging process at 500 – 600°C (930–1110°F) and no quenching. This means that no distortion will occur, only a linear and homogenous shrinkage in the order of 0.1%. Since it is totally predictable it is easy to compensate for this shrinkage by adding stock before the heat treatment. As such, the use of Corrax as a mould steel is found to provide a linear and homogenous shrinkage in the order of 0.1%, which is found to be within applicant’s range of a shrinkage rate of up to 1 %.
(Pg. 11, Why Heat Treatment?) teaches that the purpose of heat treating a finished tool is to obtain suitable mechanical properties. Properties such as hardness, toughness and strength. But there are some problems associated with heat treatment. Problems like distortion and dimensional changes have to be solved. As noted above, (Pg. 11, How to Deal with Dimensional Changes) teaches that Corrax needs only an aging process at 500 – 600°C (930–1110°F) and no quenching. This means that no distortion will occur, only a linear and homogenous shrinkage in the order of 0.1%. As such, heat treatment / aging process at 500 – 600°C (930 – 1110°F) is understood to provide for dimensional stability of the steel such that no significant further dimensional changes (like long-term shrinkage i.e, over a week) are expected to occur. As such, the only and total linear and homogenous shrinkage in the order of 0.1% will occur during heat treatment / aging, providing for a one time shrinkage rate 0.1% and thus the amount of dimensional change over any period of time after heat treatment / aging including a period of 1 week and longer.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the production method and apparatus for manufacturing a molding a layer around a body within a mold, in which the body is positioned within a mold cavity defined by opposing mold portions of the mold, to leave a cavity space between the body and the mold portions at least partially surrounding the body of Brune. By modifying the mold to be fabricated from Corrax steel, as taught by Uddeholm. Highlighting, one would be motivated to implement a mold fabricated from Corrax steel as it provides for a mould steel with un-matched corrosion resistance, easy heat treatment and good weldability, (Pg. 9, Uddeholm Corrosion Resistant Mould Steels, ¶4). Accordingly, the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination, Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945), MPEP 2144.07.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Sheppard et al. (US 5433777 A) – teaches in the (Abstract) aggregates, matrices, and composites exhibiting enhanced structural characteristics, together with methods and apparatuses for their manufacture, are disclosed. Many of these embodiments rely on three-dimensional reticulation to enhance material property features, such as fracture toughness and resistance to thermal shock.
Sheppard et al. (US 5674802 A) – teaches in the (Abstract) Catalyst elements are shaped to provide large surface area per unit of volume (porosity), while providing high packing density. Generally, the elements are characterized by more than six faces of identical size and shape, and by members extending outwardly in three dimensions. Each element includes a plurality of concave regions defined by the intersection of various of their planar surfaces, yet is not simply a section of an extrusion.
Sheppard et al. (US 5919493 A) – teaches in the (Abstract) fabrication apparatuses, including patterned pinch rollers, molds, etc., are adapted to create articles having a shape characterized by more than six faces of identical size and shape, and by members extending outwardly in three orthogonal dimensions, the articles each including at least a pair of faces which intersect to bound a concave region, each article including a plurality of such concave regions. In certain embodiments, vibrational energy (e.g. ultrasonic or microwave energy) is utilized to aid in article formation.
Lars Hoglund (US 20120219753 A1) – teaches in the (Abstract) a cast sheet that consists of a non planar net structure with cavities, where the net structure spread across a plane and where the cavities can form holes from one side of the sheet to the other. The cavities on both of the sides of the sheet can be arranged in identical structures where the structure of both sides are displaced or rotated in relation to each-other. Also described is a form template for casting of such a sheet and a method for producing such sheet.
Blanding et al. (US 4261706 A) – teaches in the (Abstract) plastically formable material, which may be formed under pressure into desired shapes, is fed while in a fluid or plastically formable condition to a pair of cooperating surfaces which are relatively movable into compressive relationship with material disposed therebetween.
Uddeholm Corrax® for AM (https://www.uddeholm.com/app/uploads/sites/ 230/2024/05/Tech-Uddeholm-Corrax-for-AM-EN.pdf, 09 – 2019) – teaches conditions for heat treatment / aging including solution annealing: 850°C/ 30min/ air cooled and ageing: 525°C/ 4h / air cooled.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Andrés E. Behrens Jr. whose telephone number is (571)-272-9096. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday 7:30 AM-5:30 PM.
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.
/Andrés E. Behrens Jr./Examiner, Art Unit 1741
/JaMel M Nelson/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1743