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 Amendment
Applicant’s amendment has been entered. Claims 1, and 3-13 are pending. Claim 2 is canceled. Deleting “in the non-worn or non-defective state” from claims 5, 6, 8, 9, and 10 has rendered moot the rejections under 35 USC 112(b) for lack of antecedent basis for the non-worn or non-defective state. Changing dependency of claim 13 from claim 1 to claim 12 has overcome rejection of claim 13 under 35 USC 112(b). Adding “wherein the upper mold part comprises a plurality of pressure plates which are connected via pressure punches to a punching plate” to independent claim 1 has overcome rejections under 35 USC 102 over Univ Novosibirsk (RU180772U1) and under 35 USC 103 over Univ Novosibirsk in view of Cheng (US20170326648).
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.
Claim(s) 1 and 3-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hansen (US20090127428) in view of Ootaki (US20200198058). Hansen and Ootaki are cited in prior office action(s). Ootaki is a publication of an application for patent in the United States effectively filed before the earliest effective filing date of the present application.
Regarding claim 1, Hansen discloses a method for repairing or modifying a modular concrete block mold having multiple mold parts ([0001], [0011], [0017], Fig. 8). Hansen discloses that the block mold has a lower mold part (lower mould part (2) [0034], Fig. 8) and an upper mold part (upper mould part (32) [0034], Fig. 8). Hansen discloses that the lower mold part comprises detachably connected mold parts that defines cells (self-supporting bolted intermediate walls, partitioning, end wall, gable [0001], [0004], [0011], [0017], [0028], claim 3). Hansen discloses that the upper mold part comprises thrust/pressing plates which fit into the cells defined by detachably connected mold parts of the lower mold [0001], [0034], [0064], and Hansen discloses that these thrust/pressing plates retain cast blocks in compression and aid in ejecting the concrete blocks [0001-02], [0034]. Plates which press, retain in compression, and aid in ejecting the material retained in compression, are to some extent wear parts. Hansen discloses that detachably connected mold parts can mold blocks of different sizes [0004] and Hansen notes that wear parts which are welded, and therefore not detachably connected, as a disadvantage encountered in prior art molds [0005], [0008]. Hansen does not disclose whether or not thrust/pressing plats are detachably connected, but considering Hansen discloses that thrust/pressing plats fit into cells defined by detachably connected mold parts [0001], [0034]; Hansen discloses that the thrust/pressing plates perform functions of wear surfaces [0001-02], [0034] and the advantages which Hansen suggests for detachably connected mold parts [0004-05], [0008], it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing to provide the thrust/pressing plates disclosed by Hansen [0001], [0034] as detachably connected to the upper mold part in order to provide mold parts which perform the retaining and ejecting functions disclosed by Hansen [0001], [0034] for differently sized cells disclosed by Hansen [0004] and avoid disadvantages of prior art mold parts which are not detachably connected, disclosed by Hansen [0005], [0008].
Hansen discloses that the lower mold part comprises a frame (mould frame 4) which surrounds an insert comprising multiple recesses designed as mold cavities (cells 6) [0011], [0016], [0028], [0037-38], Figs. 1, 8). Hansen discloses that the upper mold part comprises a plurality of pressure plates (thrust/pressing plates 44 [0001], [0034], [0064], Fig. 8), which are connected via pressure punches (pressing pistons 42 [0001], [0034], [0063], Fig. 8) to a punching plate (top holding plate 40 [0034], [0062], Fig. 8).
Hansen discloses that a replacement mold part for a mold part to be replaced of the concrete block mold is manufactured [0017], [0028], [0033]. Hansen discloses that the replacement mold part is installed in the concrete block mold in place of the mold part to be replaced ([0016-17], [0028-29], claim 3).
Hansen does not disclose that the replacement part is additively manufactured, wherein the additive manufacturing comprises a 3D metal printing process.
Ootaki teaches a method for repairing or modifying a mold part [0007-08], [0018], [0024]. Ootaki teaches that a replacement mold part to be replaced is additively manufactured and the replacement mold part is installed in the mold in place of the mold part to be replaced [0011-12], [0027]. Ootaki teaches an embodiment wherein a region of a mold part to be adapted of the mold is additively manufactured and the mold part [0024], [0027]. Ootaki teaches that the additive manufacturing it is easy to form a built-up portion with a uniform thickness on the region removed [0028], [0046], and it is possible to reduce the cost and time needed to manufacture a mold compared to making a completely new mold component [0039].
Both Hansen and Ootaki teach processes for repairing or modifying a mold part by with a metal replacement part.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to form the replacement part in the method disclosed by Hansen, applied above, with an additive manufacturing process because of the advantages which Ootaki teaches for manufacturing a replacement mold part by an additive manufacturing process [0028], [0039], [0046].
Hansen discloses that the replaced part is made of metal [0010], [0024], [0030]. Ootaki teaches that the additive manufacturing process for the replacement part comprises a 3D metal printing process [0028], [0043], [0046], [0062]. Ootaki teaches manufacturing the replacement part with steel to ensure deformation resistance and wear resistance that are by no means inferior to that of a mold component in the initial state thereof [0048]. In applying the additive manufacturing process taught by Ootaki, as applied above to manufacture parts which both Hansen [0010], [0024], [0030] and Ootaki teach [0028], [0043], [0046], [0062] are metal, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, that the additive manufacturing process applied by Hansen in view of Ootaki, applied above, is a 3D metal printing process, which would be predicted in view of Ootaki [0028], [0046] to successfully produce replacement parts.
Regarding claim 3, Hansen discloses that the concrete block mold has been manufactured at least in part by a machining process [0028]. Ootaki further teaches finishing part surfaces by machining [0044], [0049].
Regarding claim 4, Hansen discloses that the mold part to be replaced or adapted is worn and/or defective [0017].
Regarding claim 7, Hansen discloses that the mold part to be replaced or adapted is worn and/or defective [0017]. Ootaki teaches that he advantages of the additive manufacturing are applied to the mold part to build up replacement parts from a mold part wherein regions are worn and/or defective ([0027-28], Fig. 2). In order to achieve the advantages taught by Ootaki for repairing or modifying mold parts [0027-28], [0039], [0046], it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to build up the replacement part by the additive manufacturing process which Ootaki teaches achieves such advantages.
Regarding claims 5 and 8, Ootaki teaches that repairing the mold part comprises restoring the mold part to the initial state before being worn [0041]. In restoring the mold part as taught by both Hansen and Ootaki as applied above, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to restore the part to the initial state in order to achieve such a repair, as taught by Ootaki [0041]. As the original state is the mold part in a non-worn or non-defected state, the replacement part in such a restoration would have the same shape as the mold part in the initial state.
Regarding claims 6, and 9-10, Ootaki teaches a preferred embodiment wherein a thickness of the replacement region is greater than the thickness of the part replaced [0058], thereby teaching a replacement shape which is different from and goes beyond the initial, non-worn state. Considering Ootaki teaches the increased thickness as preferred, in applying the additive manufacturing process taught by Ootaki, applied above, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to apply a thickness of the replacement part which is greater than the thickness of the mold part replaced in order to attain the preferred thickness taught by Ootaki [0058], which would predictably result in restoring the mold part as taught by Ootaki [0058].
Regarding claim 11, Hansen discloses end walls or intermediate walls as mold parts to be repaired or modified [0017]. Hansen shows that intermediate and end walls define a mold cavity (Fig. 1).
Claim(s) 12-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hansen (US20090127428) in view of Ootaki (US20200198058) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lange (US20070084047).
Regarding claim 12, Hansen discloses that to modular concrete block mold has been manufactured [0010], [0024], [0030], thereby disclosing that the modular concrete block mold has been manufactured at some location which meets the broadest reasonable interpretation of a production site. As the set of locations which are either the same production site or another production site encompasses every possible production site, in additively manufacturing the replacement mold part as Hansen in view of Ootaki is applied to claim 1, Hansen in view of Ootaki necessitates that either the replacement mold part is additively manufactured at the same production site or is additively manufactured at another production site. Hansen in view of Ootaki does not disclose that additively manufacturing a replacement mold part for a mold having a lower mold part and an upper mold part, each assembled from detachably connected multiple mold parts occurs after mold data, in some way relevant to the additive manufacturing have been transmitted.
Lange teaches a method for repairing or modifying a part (Title, [0001], [0004]) by metal additive manufacturing [0005], [0024], [0036]. Lange teaches installing the replacement part in the place of the part which is replaced [0030]. Lange teaches that the process of replacing a part comprises generating a data record relevant to the replacement part is created [0014], [0017], [0020-21]. Lange teaches converting the replacement part data to data relevant to the particular additive manufacturing process [0017], [0023]. Lange teaches that production occurs with a particular additive manufacturing system according to data [0024], [0031]. Lange teaches that the additive manufacturing may be advantageous in situation wherein there is a low number of parts or for variability in the replacement part [0006]. Lange teaches that with the metal additive manufacturing mechanical rigidity characteristics values for the replacement part produced may be achieved, which correspond to the specification of the material used to the greatest extent [0026].
Both Lange and Hansen in view of Ootaki, applied above, teach metal additive manufacturing for producing a repair or replacement part.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to perform the additive manufacturing step for a replacement mold part for a mold having a lower mold part and an upper mold part, each assembled from detachably connected multiple mold parts of Hansen in view of Ootaki applied above, according to some data because Lange teaches that additively manufacturing replacement or repair parts according to some data may be advantageous in situation wherein there is a low number of parts or for variability in the replacement part [0006]. The metal additive manufacturing taught by Ootaki [0024-28], [0043], [0046] must necessarily operate according to some instructions, and Lange teaches that data in some way relevant to the additive manufacturing is effective for operating an additive manufacturing system for part repair/replacement purposes [0017], [0020-24], [0031]. As Lange teaches that relevant operating parameter is converted from modeling data [0017], [0023], performing the additive manufacturing process disclosed by Hansen in view of Ootaki and Lange would transfer that relevant data to some extent.
Regarding claim 13, Lange teaches that a generated data record relevant to the part to be manufactured may be selected for later repairs [0020], [0034]. Such selection necessitates storing the data within some system from which data is selected. In order to apply some relevant additive manufacturing data in the process disclosed by Hansen in view of Ootaki and Lange, applied above, to subsequent replacement/repair operations, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to store relevant data on a data storage system and select that data for subsequent replacement/repair operations as taught by Lange [0020-23], [0034]. A system from which data can be selected meets a database. As the present or absence of other additional additive manufacturing data records on that database would not prevent selection of pertinent data, selection of data stored on a system selects data which can be selected from a plurality of mold data in a database.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Arguments that Ootaki manufactures a type of mold different from a mold for concrete blocks and that Hansen does not disclose metal 3D printing are not persuasive because the office action relies on Hansen and not on Ootaki to meet limitations of a mold for concrete blocks, and on Ootaki, not Hansen to teach metal 3D printing. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See MPEP 2145(IV).
Arguments that one of ordinary skill in the art would not combine Ootaki with Hansen or use metal additive manufacturing to build parts of concrete molds are not persuasive because Hansen discloses that “insert parts and wear parts are made of steel with great wearability” [0010]; Hansen discloses that the molds are for making concrete blocks ([0001], [0011], [0017], Fig. 8), and Ootaki teaches forming mold parts from wear resistant steel [0007-08], [0018], [0024], [0030], [0046]. Ootaki’s teaching of manufacturing steel mold parts which Hansen discloses for steel mold parts is sufficient motivation for one of ordinary skill in the art to apply metal additive manufacturing taught by Ootaki to manufacture replacement mold parts taught by Hansen, particularly as Hansen does not indicate a preference for a method of manufacturing replacement mold parts.
Arguments that Ootaki teaches a mold for components of a different shape (ring-shaped compact) from different molding material (metal powder) from a mold for a concrete block, and the lack of a single art reference that discloses metal additive manufacturing and concrete block molding are not persuasive because the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2145(III). Knowledge of additively manufacturing steel mold tooling would have been available to one of skill in the art of manufacturing wear resistant steel mold tooling in view of Ootaki, and knowledge of manufacturing concrete block molds of wear-resistant steel would have available to one of skill in the art of manufacturing wear resistant steel mold tooling in view of Hansen. MPEP 2143 includes several examples wherein no individual reference disclosed all claim limitations, yet a combination of references rendered claims obvious.
Arguing that concrete block molds are exposed to high loads. In the manufacture of concrete blocks, is not sufficient to show that the teachings of Ootaki would be unsuitable for concrete block molds because Ootaki teaches applying a pressure of “500 MPa or more, or more preferably 600 MPa or more” [0043]. This is a substantial pressure greater than the compressive strength of many materials, which shows that Ootaki provides sufficient teaching in manufacturing wear resistant steel tooling which is subjected to some load.
Arguments that one of ordinary skill in the art would consider 3D metal printing for small prototyping components are not persuasive because Ootaki teaches metal additive manufacturing for functional mold parts [0007-08], [0018], [0024], [0030]. Ootaki’s teachings show that metal additive manufacturing is not limited to the small-scale prototyping argued by applicant.
Arguments that the present application uses metal additive manufacturing for parts 1600 mm in size with materials that are less expensive than conventional materials used in prototype manufacturing are not persuasive because the arguments are not commensurate in scope with the claims. Claim 1 can be met by additively manufacturing a replacement part of any size with any metal. The argument further does not address the applied prior art combination which would manufacture the part with wear-resistant steel as disclosed by Hansen [0010] and Ootaki [0030], [0046], and not with conventional prototyping materials. Wear-resistant steel would be expected to have improved fatigue strength and service life.
Arguments that the claimed invention can be manufactured without post processing are not persuasive because the present application claims manufacturing the block mold by casting and/or machining (claim 3).
Applicant’s arguments attributing favorable properties and results to metal additive manufacturing are not persuasive in showing how the claims define over Hansen in view of Ootaki because Ootaki teaches metal additive manufacturing [0028], [0043], [0046], [0062]. Metal additive manufacturing will exhibit all the favorable results of metal additive manufacturing. Applicant does not support this argument suggesting unexpected results of metal additive manufacturing with evidence commensurate in scope with the broadly claimed “3D metal printing process” that the claimed 3D metal printing process yields nonobvious results to a statistical and practical significance over the 3D metal printing process taught by Ootaki [0028], [0030], [0046], [0062] as described in MPEP 716.02 and subsections. Applicant’s qualitative suggestions of unexpected results further do not amount to evidence of unexpected results, and arguments presented by the applicant cannot take the place of evidence in the record (MPEP 716.01(c)(II), 2145(I)).
Arguments that metal 3D printing provides favorable properties over CNC machining are not persuasive in showing how the presently claimed method defines over a combination of prior art which teaches metal 3D printing.
Many of applicant’s arguments appear to compare 3D metal printing process with results of early developments in the field of metal additive manufacturing and not with the results which would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the present application. Ootaki alone [0030], [0043], [0046] shows that the field of metal additive manufacturing has sufficiently advanced that metal additive manufacturing can produce functional, wear resistant steel tooling. At the time of filing, these results would have been predictable, at least in view of Ootaki. See also the earlier-published US20190263056, which lists Ootaki as a coinventor, and discloses effectively, additively manufacturing wear-resistant steel [0032], [0067].
Applicant acknowledges previously set forth rejections of dependent claims, but does not argue specific limitations recited in dependent claims over the prior art.
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 SEAN P O'KEEFE whose telephone number is (571)272-7647. The examiner can normally be reached MR 8:00-6:30.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Sally Merkling can be reached at (571) 272-6297. 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.
/SEAN P. O'KEEFE/ Examiner, Art Unit 1738
/SALLY A MERKLING/ SPE, Art Unit 1738
