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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 5-6, 8-10, and 13 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 5, 6, 8, 9, and 10 recite the limitation " the non-worn or non-defective state" in the last limitation of each of the claims. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is not clear what the non-worn or non-defective state of the mold part is or to what degree of wear and defect of a part are permitted in order for the state of the part to be non-worn or non-defective.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "the mold data" in the third line of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 12 introduces data, but claim 13 depends directly on independent claim 1, not on claim 12.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1 and 11-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Univ Novosibirsk (RU180772U1). Univ Novosibirsk is cited in the IDS filed November 22, 2022. References are directed to the applicant supplied English language translation which accompanied the November 22, 2022 submission.
Regarding claim 1, Univ Novosibirsk discloses a method for repairing or modifying a modular concrete block mold having multiple mold parts ([0006-08], Fig. 1). Univ Novosibirsk discloses that a replacement mold part for a mold part to be replaced of the concrete block mold (replaceable polymer inserts and internal partitions of molds) is additively manufactured (using three-dimensional printers) [0008]. Univ Novosibirsk shows that the replacement mold part (replaceable polymer inserts 3 and internal partitions 4) is installed in the concrete block mold (Fig. 1, [0006]), and in disclosing the part as interchangeable [0006-08], Univ Novosibirsk discloses that the part is inserted in place of some mold part to be replaced. Note that claim 1 presents adapting a region of a mold part to be adapted as an alternative to replacing a replacement mold part to be replaced.
Regarding claim 11, Univ Novosibirsk discloses that the mold part to be replaced is an insert or internal partition [0008], which Univ Novosibirsk shows as a mold part of a mold cavity (Fig. 1 with reference to [0006]).
Regarding claim 12, Univ Novosibirsk discloses that the modular concrete block mold has been manufactured [0006-07], which necessitates that the mold was manufactured at some production site. Univ Novosibirsk discloses that the replacement mold part is additively manufactured [0008], which necessitates that the replacement mold part be manufactured at some site. The site where the replacement part is manufactured must necessarily be the same site as the site where the mold was manufactured or another site. Claim 12, as worded, encompasses all sites. Univ Novosibirsk discloses manufacturing after some mold data relevant to the additive manufacturing have been transmitted (manufactured according to information on chips) ([0008], see particularly lines 83-85 of the applicant-supplied English language translation).
Regarding claim 13, Univ Novosibirsk discloses that the additive manufacturing is performed according to data (relevant information) [0008]. Univ Novosibirsk discloses that the data is stored on chips [0008-09], and Univ Novosibirsk discloses a plurality of such information [0006], [0008-09]. Univ Novosibirsk thereby discloses data which meets the structure of data which can be selected from a plurality of mold data in a database. Applicant is encouraged to reflect on the manipulative difference between “can be” (what is claimed) and “is”.
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) 2 and 4-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Univ Novosibirsk (RU180772U1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Cheng (US20170326648). Cheng is an earlier published family member of US10625341 cited in the IDS filed November 22, 2022.
Regarding claim 2, Univ Novosibirsk discloses that the mold comprises metal removable components ([0007], but Univ Novosibirsk does not disclose that manufacturing a part to be replaced comprises a 3D metal printing process.
Cheng teaches a method for repairing or modifying (adjusting) a modular mold having multiple mold parts ([0011-12], Figs. 1-2). Cheng teaches an embodiment wherein a replacement mold part for a mold part to be replaced of the mold is additively manufactured and the replacement mold part is installed in the mold in place of the mold part to be replaced (region where material is being removed from the exterior surface of the die-block may create a void in the die-block that matches the shape and geometry of the layers of material that is being added [0012], Fig. 2). Cheng teaches an embodiment wherein a region of a mold part to be adapted (modified) of the mold is additively manufactured and the mold part adapted in this way is then installed in the mold [0012-13]. Cheng teaches that the additive manufacturing is a 3D metal printing process [0014-15].
Both Univ Novosibirsk and Cheng teach repairing or modifying a mold part by additively manufacturing a replacement part.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to apply metal manufacturing to produce replacement metal parts for the mold in the process disclosed by Univ Novosibirsk, applied above, because Cheng teaches metal additive manufacturing as effective for producing replacement metal parts which become worn in a molding process [0011-15]. Such application of metal additive manufacturing would predictably result in replacing worn parts as taught by Cheng [0012], which Univ Novosibirsk may be removed [0007], and therefore replaced.
Regarding claims 4 and 7, Univ Novosibirsk does not disclose replacing a worn or defective part; however, Cheng teaches that molding parts wear out over time or obtain damage to localized portions as a result of use [0002]. Cheng discloses that additive manufacturing is effective for replacing or adapting such worn or defective portions [0012]. Cheng teaches that the additive manufacturing comprises building up the replacement/modification part [0012]. Considering Cheng teaches that mold parts become worn with use [0002], one of ordinary skill in the art would expect the mold disclosed by Univ Novosibirsk, applied above, to become worn with use. Given the effectiveness taught by Cheng of using additive manufacturing to repair or modify worn parts by building up such parts [0012], it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to apply the additive manufacturing disclosed by Univ Novosibirsk [0008] to replace worn and/or defective portions of the mold, which Cheng teaches that molds develop with use [0002] and are effectively repaired by additively manufactured parts [0012], and which Cheng teaches comprises building up such parts [0012], thereby meeting the additional limitations recited in both claim 4 and claim 7.
Regarding claims 5 and 8, Cheng teaches embodiments wherein the shape of the replacement/adapted mold part matches the shape of the mold part to be replaced in the non-worn or non-defective state (region where material is being removed from the exterior surface of the die-block may create a void in the die-block that matches the shape and geometry of the layers of material that is being added [0012], Fig. 2). In view of Univ Novosibirsk, one of ordinary skill in the art could have selected the shape of the part to be replaced [0008-09]. One of ordinary skill in the art would have regarded a process wherein a worn portion is replaced/adapted by the same additively manufactured shape as an obvious selection of shape for replacement/adapted molding parts which Cheng teaches can repair worn or defective portions [0012].
Regarding claims 6 and 9, Univ Novosibirsk discloses that the replaced parts may be various shapes [0006], thereby disclosing replacing a mold part with a shape that is different from that which is replaced.
Regarding claim 10, Cheng teaches embodiments wherein the additively manufactured region of the adapted mold part is a region that goes beyond the shape of the mold part to be adapted in the non-worn or non-defective state [0013]. Cheng teaches that such a modified change may be the result of a design selection [0013]. One goal disclosed by Univ Novosibirsk is to adjust the decorative surface of the formed block [0005]. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to replace the mold part in the process disclosed by Univ Novosibirsk in view of Cheng with a part that to some extent go beyond the shape of the part which is replaced, in order to attain a desired design characteristic, as taught by Cheng [0013], thereby achieving the different decorative features of a façade block taught by Univ Novosibirsk for inserts of various shapes [0005-06].
Claim(s) 1-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hansen (US20090127428) in view of Ootaki (US20200198058). 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 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.
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 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 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].
Regarding claim 2, 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], [0046]. In applying the additive manufacturing process taught by Ootaki, as applied above to manufacture pars which both Hansen [0010], [0024], [0030] and Ootaki [0028], [0046] are metal, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art 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 a mold cavity (Fig. 1).
Conclusion
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