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 .
Notice of Withdrawal from Issue
The application has been withdrawn from issue pursuant to 34 CFR 1.313 per the notice mailed on 11/10/2025 and prosecution reopened. The reasons for reopening prosecution have been detailed in the Office action below; specifically, with regards to the disclosure of Herbst (US 2002/0109267 A1) disclosing the limitations of amended claim 1.
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed 9/05/2024 has been entered. Claims 1, 5, 9-10 have been amended; and claim 7 has been canceled. Applicant’s amendment to the Claims have overcome the 112b rejection set forth in the non-Final Office action previously mailed on 5/08/2024.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: "a plurality of pistons positioned the plurality of areas" in line 7 of the claim should read "a plurality of pistons positioned within the plurality of areas". Appropriate correction is required.
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) 1, 9 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Herbst (US 2002/0109267 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Herbst teaches a compaction system (Figures 1-4; paragraph 0044, mold being ‘a compaction system’), comprising:
a mold assembly (Figures 1-4), comprising:
a bottom wall spanning a plurality of areas of the mold assembly (as shown in Figures, mold comprises a bottom wall, which spans areas beneath mold parts 3, 4, 5);
one or more side walls coupled to the bottom wall (as shown in Figures, one or more side walls are coupled with bottom of mold);
a mold cavity defined by the bottom wall and the one or more side walls (as shown in Figures, cavity is formed therein by walls and bottom of mold) and configured to contain a composite material (paragraph 0044, press-molding material; noting said material is worked upon by the apparatus and provides no structural significance as to the apparatus);
a plurality of pistons positioned [within] the plurality of areas (mold parts 3, 4 in Figures);
a first piston of the plurality of pistons positioned over a first area of the plurality of areas of the mold assembly (mold part 3, being positioned over area below itself (i.e., first area));
a second piston adjacent to the first piston and positioned over a second area of the plurality of areas of the mold assembly (mold part 4, being positioned over area below itself (i.e., second area)), wherein the first piston and the second piston of the plurality of pistons are independently movable to reduce a volume of the mold cavity (paragraph 0045, The individual movements of the mold parts (3), (4) and (5) may take place simultaneously, in an overlapping manner or else sequentially, in a controlled manner);
an immobilized cover block (mold part 5, noting the instant application proves no specifical definition of ‘cover block’; hence, mold part 5 is interpreted as a ‘cover block’ under broadest reasonable interpretation according to paragraph 0085 of the published application (i.e., any shape that fits the area to be constrained) positioned over a third area of the plurality of areas of the mold assembly (being positioned over area below itself (i.e., third area); paragraph 0047, mold part (5) performs no movement in the first phase of the differentiated press-molding process; hence, mold part 5 is ‘immobilized’ during the first phase) and configured to constrain the composite material within the third area of the mold cavity (paragraphs 0048-0049);
a plurality of fasteners configured to selectively immobilize the first piston and the second piston of the plurality of pistons (paragraph 0041, discloses using mechanical means (i.e., levels or spring elements) to preserve the static equilibrium of the additional presses (i.e., mold parts 3, 4) which meets the broadest reasonable interpretation of ‘fastener’ as evidenced by paragraph 0096 of the published application (i.e., The fasteners 130 are anything that selectively immobilizes one or more components of the compaction system); and
a compression actuator configured to sequentially advance the first piston and the second piston of the plurality of pistons from an initial position to an actuated position to compress the composite material within the first area and the second area of the mold cavity (paragraph 0045, The force required for the movements …may in the embodiment mentioned be applied both mechanically and hydraulically. The individual movements of the mold parts (3), (4) and (5) may take place simultaneously, in an overlapping manner or else sequentially, in a controlled manner.).
Regarding claim 9, Herbst further teaches the first piston is movable linearly along a first axis and the second piston movable linearly along a second axis, the first axis parallel to the second axis and spaced a fixed distance from the second axis during actuating of the first piston (as shown in Figures, mold part 3 and mold part 4 move linearly on separate and parallel y-axis’).
Regarding claim 12, Herbst teaches all the elements of claim 1, but does not disclose the composite material comprises:
a filler comprising one or more of sand, soil, rocks, gravel, stones, bricks, concrete, cement, wood, metals, alloys, ceramics, polymers, glasses, carbon material, solid waste, or biomass; and
a binder comprising one or more of thermoplastic materials, thermosetting materials, elastomeric materials, polymer materials, ceramic materials, cements, glasses, carbon materials, metals, alloys, salts, and sulfur-containing materials.
However, it is noted the composite material relates to the material or article being worked upon by the compaction system. The "[i]nclusion of the material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims." In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 USPQ458, 459 (CCPA 1963); see also In re Young, 75 F.2d 996, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935). See MPEP 2115. Further, said limitation relates to intended use of the claimed apparatus. 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. In the instant case, Herbst teaches all the structural limitations of the apparatus of claim 12.
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.
Claim(s) 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Herbst, in view of Nagata (US 2010/0310408 A1).
Regarding claims 2 and 3, Herbst teaches all the elements of claim 1, but does not disclose the one or more side walls form a rectangle or the one or more side walls for a cylinder.
In the same field of compaction systems, Nagata teaches a compaction system (compression molding machine 10 in Figures 7-9), comprising: a mold assembly (frame body 50; paragraphs 0047-0048), including: a bottom wall (Figure 8, frame body comprises bottom wall portion); one or more side walls coupled to the bottom wall (as shown in Figure 8, frame body comprises side walls attached to bottom wall portion); one or more pistons (piston rods 520a with pushing means 530 attached thereto; paragraph 0047), wherein the bottom wall, the one or more side walls, and the one or more pistons at least partially define a mold cavity (as shown in Figures 7-9; paragraph 0048, frame body comprises cavity for containing powder P); and a compression actuator (cylinders 520 in Figures 7-9). Further, Nagata teaches the one or more side walls form a rectangle (Figures 7-9; paragraph 0048 of Nagata, frame body 550 is of a square columnar shape) and further can form a cylinder (paragraph 0044, cross-sectional shape of the through hole 210 (cavity 220) is appropriately selected from a circular shape (i.e., the one or more side walls forming a cylinder), rectangular shape, and the like depending on the shape of the sintered magnet that is going to be molded from now on).
One skilled in the art to have substituted the mold assembly of Nagata; specifically, wherein the one or more side walls form a rectangular or circular shape, for the mold assembly of Herbst; specifically, the one or more side walls and the results of the substitution would have been obvious to one skilled in the art. One would have been motivated to use the mold assembly (i.e., having the one or more side walls forming a rectangular or circular) for the purpose of compacting a part having said shape, as disclosed by Nagata (paragraph 0044). Alternatively, one skilled in the art could have substituted the mold assembly; specifically, the plurality of pistons, of Herbst for that of Nagata and the results would have been obvious to one skilled in the art. One would have been motivated to do so to provide a reduction in the necessary force to compact a part, as disclosed by Herbst (paragraph 0002).
Claim(s) 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Herbst, in view of Stevens (US 3,264,381 A).
Regarding claim 4, Herbst teaches all the elements of claim 1, but does not disclose a grate having a plurality of apertures.
Stevens teaches an apparatus for compacting a material (Figure 4; col. 1, lines 12-23, apparatus controls compression/compaction of beads therein), comprising a mold body having a bottom wall and one more move side walls (mold part 16 having bottom and sidewalls); one or more pistons independently movable to compact the material (parts 20, 22, 24, 26; col. 2, lines 71-72, are individually movable by their respective rams); and an actuator configured to advance the one or more pistons (rams 30, 32, 34, 36). Further, Stevens discloses the apparatus comprises a cover/closure plate (18; e.g., grate) having a plurality of apertures therein (as shown in Figure 4). The cover/closure plates enables the apparatus to encase the material while allowing the one or more pistons to move within the mold body (col. 3, lines 1-4). As both Herbst and Stevens relate to comparable devices (e.g., compaction apparatuses having one or more pistons), one of ordinary skill in the art could have provided a cover/closure plate to the mold body of Herbst, in the manner disclosed by Stevens, and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art. Compaction/compression of the material would be contained within the mold body while allow the one or more pistons to be movable thereon. One skilled in the art would be motivate to provide a cover/closure plate to prevent material from escaping the mold body during compaction or compression.
Regarding claim 5, Herbst as modified by Stevens, teaches all the elements of claim 4 and further discloses the first piston and the second piston of the plurality of pistons traverse the grate via the plurality of apertures (Figure 4; col. 2, lines 71-72 of Stevens, are individually movable by their respective rams of Stevens).
Claim(s) 6 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Herbst.
Regarding claim 6, Herbst teaches all the elements of claim 1, but does not disclose the compression actuator is selected from the group consisting of a mechanical press, a hydraulic jack, and a roller. However, Herbst teaches actuation is provided by mechanical and/or hydraulic means (paragraphs 0041, 0045). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to have utilized a mechanical press or hydraulic jack for the mechanical means or hydraulic means as said elements are conventional forms of actuators known in the art.
Regarding claim 10, Herbst teaches all the elements of claim 1, but does not disclose a first fastener of the plurality of fasteners immobilizes the first piston in the initial position; and a second fastener immobilizes the first piston in a second position when actuated. However, Herbst discloses using mechanical means (i.e., levels or spring elements) to preserve the static equilibrium of the additional presses (i.e., mold parts 3, 4) (paragraph 0041). Further, Herbst discloses mold parts (3, 4) (i.e., first and second pistons) are in static positions in both an initial position (Figure 1) and in a second position (Figure 4). It would have been obvious for one skilled in the art to have provided separate first and second fasteners to maintain the static positions of the mold parts (3, 4) for redundancy. Further, the use of separate fasteners for the initial and second positions would enable the first and second pistons to have separate immobilized (i.e., static) positions.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 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. Specifically, the reference Herbst (2002/0109267 A1) is being relied to address the amendment to claim 1.
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 Virak Nguon whose telephone number is (571)272-4196. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday (and alternate Fridays) 7:30-5:00.
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, Alison L Hindenlang can be reached at 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.
/VIRAK NGUON/Examiner, Art Unit 1741 2/18/2026