DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 09/25/2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Applicant amendment filed 09/25/2025 has been entered and is currently under consideration. Claims 16-33 remain pending in the application.
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.
In claim 17, mechanical locking means is given the scope of an annulus cog plate with inward teeth and an annulus cog plate with outward teeth and equivalents thereof.
In claim 17, sealing means is given the scope of an inflatable joint and equivalents thereof.
In claim 22, clamping means is given the scope of a device that generates a clamping force and equivalents thereof.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 16, 19, 21-22, and 32-33 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yang et al. (US2010/0015271 of record) hereinafter Yang.
Regarding claim 16, Yang teaches:
A molding apparatus for manufacturing a molded article from a raw material intended to be arranged in a first region of an embossing chamber of said molding apparatus (Fig 3-4: housing 12, chamber 112),
said embossing chamber presents a first frame and comprising a mold and a counter-mold, the mold and counter-mold being arranged on two opposite sides of the first region, the mold being mobile along an embossing axis within the embossing chamber (Fig 3-4: mold 20, housing 14, second sub chamber 112; [0024]),
wherein the molding apparatus comprises an actuation chamber displaying a second frame and (Fig 3-4: housing 12, chamber 111) having a common wall with the embossing chamber (Fig 3-4: air tight film 32), the common wall being part of the second frame and separating the embossing chamber from the actuation chamber (Fig 3-4: housing 12, spring carrier 34, guiding rods 341; [0024, 0028]),
wherein both the embossing chamber and the actuation chamber are gas tight ([0024]),
wherein both the embossing chamber and the actuation chambers are made of a rigid sturdy material (Fig 3-4: first housing 12 and second housing 14 are shown to be rigid and sturdy enough to not be deformed by application of the pressure difference generating module), the first frame being configured to sustain a pressure difference Patmosphere - P4 (annotated Fig 4; [0024-0028]; housing 14 sustains a pressure difference between the atmosphere and P4 of the second sub chamber 112), and the second frame being configured to be able to simultaneously sustain:
a negative pressure difference Patmosphere – P5, where P5 may be ambient pressure or higher on an inside surface (annotated Fig 4; [0024-0028]; housing 12 sustains a pressure difference between the atmosphere and P5 of the chamber 111, where P5 is increased relative to the pressure P4 in second sub chamber 112), and
a positive pressure difference P5-P4 on an outside surface (annotated Fig 4; [0024-0028]; the pressure P5 in chamber 111 is larger than P4 in second sub chamber 112 due to pressure-difference generator 40),
both the embossing chamber and the actuation chamber being configured to, both simultaneously, sustain and maintain low inside pressures or inside vacuum, said low inside pressure ranging from atmospheric pressure to vacuum ([0019, 0025-28]; it is reasonable to assume that the chambers 111, 112 are exposed to atmospheric when the mold is opened to place material in the mold, such as in Fig 1. Yang is silent as to any further pressure manipulation immediately after closing of the mold in Fig 3. Therefore the chambers 111 and 112 are configured to sustain and maintain low inside pressure of atmospheric pressure),
wherein the molding apparatus further comprises a pressurization system configured to generate a predefined pressure differential between the embossing chamber and the actuation chamber (Fig 3-4: pressure difference generator 40),
wherein said common wall comprises an opening in which at least one embossing actuator is positioned (Fig 3-4: spring carrier 34, guiding rod 341, springs 342; Fig 3-4 show air tight film 32 has openings to accommodate the guiding rods 341 and springs 342), said embossing actuator comprising a mobile member (Fig 3-4: spring carrier 34), said mobile member being a rigid plate displaying a first surface which is part of the embossing chamber and is connected to the mold (Fig 3-4: bottom surface of spring carrier 34) and a second surface, opposite to the first surface, which is part of the actuation chamber (Fig 3-4: top surface of spring carrier 34), the embossing actuator being configured to generate a movement of the mold so as to mold the raw material when a predefined pressure differential is applied between the embossing chamber and the actuation chamber ([0025, 0028]), and
wherein the mold displays a molding surface aimed at cooperating with the counter-mold during the molding of the raw material and a connection surface connected to the first surface of the embossing element (Fig 3-4), the molding surface of the mold projected along the embossing axis being smaller than the second surface of the embossing actuator projected along the same embossing axis (Fig 3-4).
PNG
media_image1.png
376
576
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 19, Yang teaches the apparatus of claim 16.
Yang does not explicitly recite wherein an embossing pressure exerted by the mold on the counter-mold during an embossing is greater than 5 bars.
However, "apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990). A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). Functional claim language that is not limited to a specific structure covers all devices that are capable of performing the recited function. See MPEP 2114.
Since the prior art apparatus teaches the claimed structure, one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect the prior art apparatus to be capable of performing the claimed functions as well.
Regarding claim 21, Yang teaches the apparatus of claim 16.
Yang further teaches wherein the embossing actuator comprises at least one deformable part, said deformable part being deformed by the application of the predefined pressure differential and allowing a movement of the mobile member (Fig 3-4: air-tight film 32).
Yang does not explicitly recite said at least one deformable part being arranged so as to provide a parallelism self-correction function of at least one of the molds. However, Yang teaches the deformable part is a film 32 with spring carrier 34 to homogenize the pressure applied to the mold. Applicant specification discloses the deformable part as a sheet to avoid pressure concentration at mold edges. Since the prior art apparatus teaches the claimed structure, one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect the prior art apparatus to possess the claimed properties as well.
Regarding claim 22, Yang teaches the apparatus of claim 16.
Yang further teaches wherein the embossing actuator comprises clamping means allowing to keep the mold integral with the mobile member (Fig 3-4: elastic driving module 30, airtight film 32; [0025, 0028]).
Regarding claim 32, Yang teaches the apparatus of claim 16.
Yang does not explicitly recite wherein an embossing pressure exerted by the mold on the counter-mold during an embossing is greater than 20 bars.
However, "apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990). A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). Functional claim language that is not limited to a specific structure covers all devices that are capable of performing the recited function. See MPEP 2114.
Since the prior art apparatus teaches the claimed structure, one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect the prior art apparatus to be capable of performing the claimed functions as well.
Regarding claim 33, Yang teaches the apparatus of claim 16.
Yang does not explicitly recite wherein an embossing pressure exerted by the mold on the counter-mold during an embossing is greater than 50 bars.
However, "apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990). A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). Functional claim language that is not limited to a specific structure covers all devices that are capable of performing the recited function. See MPEP 2114.
Since the prior art apparatus teaches the claimed structure, one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect the prior art apparatus to be capable of performing the claimed functions as well.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 17-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang in view of Gammeter (US1191296 of record).
Regarding claim 17, Yang teaches the apparatus of claim 16.
Yang further teaches keeping the apparatus closed while the pressure inside the actuation chamber is higher than the pressure inside the embossing chamber (Fig 3-4: [0024-0025]).
Yang further teaches sealing means comprising an inflatable joint (Fig 3-4: air tight film 32; [0025]).
Yang does not teach wherein the molding apparatus comprises mechanical locking means.
In the same field of endeavor regarding molding, Gammeter teaches a mechanical locking system comprising an annulus cog plate with inward teeth and an annulus cog plate with outward teeth for the motivation of locking the mold cover (Fig 2-3: lugs 11, 14; p 2, ln 105-121).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the apparatus as taught by Yang with the locking mechanism of Gammeter in order to lock the mold cover.
Regarding claim 18, Yang in view of Gammeter teaches the apparatus of claim 17.
Yang further teaches wherein the sealing means comprise an inflatable joint (Fig 3-4: [0024-0025]).
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang in view of Dunn (US879950 of record).
Regarding claim 20, Yang teaches the apparatus of claim 16.
Yang does not teach wherein an actuation system enables the movement of the actuation chamber in a position where the mold it is not facing the counter-mold along the embossing direction and thus enables an easier recovery of the molded articles by an access along the embossing direction.
In the same field of endeavor regarding molding, Dunn teaches an actuation system that enables the movement of a top mold portion in a position where the mold it is not facing a counter-mold along the molding direction and thus enables an easier recovery of the molded articles by an access along the molding direction for the motivation of easily removing the bottom mold portion and molded article (Fig 8: p 2, ln 110-p3, 128).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the apparatus as taught by Yang with the actuation system as taught by Dunn in order to easily remove the bottom mold portion and molded article.
Claim(s) 23-27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang in view of Torres (WO2019001977 of record with reference made to examiner provided machine translation).
Regarding claim 23, Yang teaches the apparatus of claim 16.
Yang does not teach a heating element configured to transfer thermal energy to the raw material; and a cooling element configured to absorb thermal energy from the raw material.
In the same field of endeavor regarding molding, Torres teaches a heating element configured to transfer thermal energy to the raw material; and a cooling element configured to absorb thermal energy from the raw material for the motivation of decreasing hot and cold spots when regulating the temperature of mold halves (Fig 1: fluid circulation tubes 140; [0007, 0014, 0045]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the apparatus as taught by Yang with the heating and cooling elements as taught by Torres in order to decrease hot and cold spots when regulating the temperature of mold halves.
Regarding claim 24, Yang in view of Torres teaches the apparatus of claim 23.
Torres further teaches wherein the apparatus comprises a first and a second heating element, the first heating element being coupled to the mold and the second heating element being coupled to the counter-mold (Fig 1: fluid circulation tubes 140; [0014, 0045]).
Regarding claim 25, Yang in view of Torres teaches the apparatus of claim 23.
Torres further teaches wherein the apparatus comprises a first and a second cooling elements, the first cooling element being coupled to the mold and the second cooling element being coupled to the counter-mold (Fig 1: fluid circulation tubes 140; [0014, 0045]).
Regarding claim 26, Yang in view of Torres teaches the apparatus of claim 23.
Torres further teaches wherein heating thermal energy is transmitted simultaneously by conduction through the mold and the counter-mold and cooling thermal energy is transmitted by conduction through the mold and counter-mold ([0004, 0014, 0045]).
Regarding claim 27, Yang teaches the apparatus of claim 16.
Yang further teaches wherein the embossing chamber displays a first frame (Fig 3-4: first housing 12, spring carrier 34) and the actuation chamber displays a second frame (Fig 3-4: bottom portion of second housing 14), the mold being affixed to the first frame and the counter-mold being affixed to the second frame (Fig 3-4).
Yang does not teach the apparatus comprising a thermal insulation between the mold and counter-mold and the frames to which they are respectively affixed.
In the same field of endeavor regarding molding, Torres teaches a first frame and a second frame (Fig 1: mold 100), the mold being affixed to the first frame and the counter-mold being affixed to the second frame (Fig 1: molding parts 120) and a thermal insulation between the mold and counter-mold and the frames to which they are respectively affixed for the motivation of ensuring better heat exchange between the fluid in the tubes and the molding part, so that the mold reaches its stabilized production temperature much more quickly than a conventional mold (Fig 1: thermal insulation part 110; [0017]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the apparatus as taught by Yang with the thermal insulation as taught by Torres in order to ensure better heat exchange between the fluid in the tubes and the molding part, so that the mold reaches its stabilized production temperature much more quickly than a conventional mold.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 09/25/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant clarification regarding the claim terms “rigid and sturdy” are noted on the record and the corresponding 112b rejection is withdrawn.
Applicant argues that spring carrier 34, guiding rods 341 and springs 342 do not form a common wall between the two chambers 111, 112, and therefore cannot be considered a common wall. However, the OA does not rely on the above interpretation of the claimed common wall in the art rejection, and the film 32 is interpreted as the common wall that separates the two chambers 111, 112 ([0024]).
Applicant argues that spring carrier 34, guiding rods 341 and springs 342 cannot be considered the claimed embossing actuator because they are not located inside an opening of the common wall. As stated in the art rejection, film 32 is interpreted to be the common wall. Annotated Fig 4 shows that guiding rods 341 and springs 342 attached to spring carrier 34 are located in two openings of film 32.
Applicant argues that film 32 cannot be considered the common wall because it is not rigid and is deformable. However, the examiner notes that nowhere in the claim is it required that the common wall be sturdy or rigid and that this limitation is directed towards the embossing chamber and the actuation chambers. The examiner notes that claim 16 is distinct from requiring the entirety of the embossing chamber and actuation chamber to be rigid and sturdy. The embossing chamber and actuation chamber of Yang comprising both an elastic film 32 and rigid housings 14 and 12 respectively is well within the scope of the claims.
Applicant argues that film 32 does not present an opening to position an embossing actuator. See above for discussion of this subject matter.
Applicant argues that the claimed invention distinguishes over the prior art because the chambers are able to maintain vacuum and resists to negative pressure differences and are reinforced with metal plates. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Applicant argues that Yang does not have a rigid and strong frame. However, in applicant’s response to the previous 112b rejection of the claim term “rigid and sturdy”, applicant sets on the record that rigid and sturdy can encompass the opposite meaning of deformable in the range of applied molding pressures. Fig 3 and 4 of Yang show the apparatus prior to and subsequent to an application of a pressure difference by pressure-difference generator 40 ([0024-0028]). The figures show no deformation of housings 12 and 14.
Applicant asserts that Yang does not teach any pressure ranges. While Yang does not disclose any pressure ranges numerically, it is reasonable to assume that the chambers 111, 112 are exposed to atmospheric pressure when the mold is opened to place material in the mold, such as in Fig 1. Yang is silent as to any further pressure manipulation immediately after closing of the mold in Fig 3. Yang then describes using pressure-difference generator 40 to remove air from chamber 112 and supply air to chamber 111, creating a pressure differential (annotated Fig 4; [0024-0028]). While Yang does not recite pressures in a numerical fashion, Yang clearly teaches a range of operating pressures that can be reasonably deduced from the disclosed operations. Therefore the chambers 111 and 112 are configured to sustain and maintain low inside pressure of atmospheric pressure and the first and second frames are configured to sustain the claimed pressure differences.
Applicant argues that the prior art does not recognize the benefits of the claimed invention, namely, use of a rigid countermold and high embossing pressure. However, the countermold of Yang in Fig 3-4 shows no deformability throughout the molding processes, and as discussed above, Yang teaches the pressure differential of the claimed invention. Furthermore, the fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985).
For at least the above reasons, the application is not in condition for allowance.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDER A WANG whose telephone number is (571)272-5361. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 8 am-4 pm EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Alison Hindenlang can be reached on 571-270-7001. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ALEXANDER A WANG/Examiner, Art Unit 1741
/ALISON L HINDENLANG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1741