DETAILED ACTION
The communication dated 9/12/2025 has been entered and fully considered. Claims 1-27 and 47 are cancelled. Claims 41-46 are withdrawn. Claim 28 is amended. Claims 28-40 and 48 are pending.
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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Election/Restrictions
Claims 41-46 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected Group 2 (claims 41-46), there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 02/26/2025.
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues that KAMBERBEEK does not teach the limitation of “the second direction being perpendicular to the axial direction”.
The examiner notes that after consultation the examiner understands the instant claim limitation is directed to the intended use of the lid as opposed to the originally claimed system. The invention of the instant claim set is a system for forming a lid. As written, the motion of the lid does not further define the system to form the lid. The motion or movement of the lid only further defines the lid. The examiner invites applicant to further defining the structure in the system in way that shows how a system mechanism allows the lid movement. See MPEP 2114(ii).
“[A]pparatus 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) (emphasis in original). 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) (The preamble of claim 1 recited that the apparatus was “for mixing flowing developer material” and the body of the claim recited “means for mixing ..., said mixing means being stationary and completely submerged in the developer material.” The claim was rejected over a reference which taught all the structural limitations of the claim for the intended use of mixing flowing developer. However, the mixer was only partially submerged in the developer material. The Board held that the amount of submersion is immaterial to the structure of the mixer and thus the claim was properly rejected.).
Applicant argues that Applicant’s arguments with respect to restriction have been considered and persuasive but are moot. In light of a new search, new art supports the need for restriction (see art rejections below).
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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 28-33, 35-40, and 48 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KAMBERBEEK (US 20120231124 A1) in view of TOKIGAWA (US 20060131788 A1).
For claim 28, KAMBERBEEK teaches the formation of a press product comprising: a manufacturing component to be used as a first tool (mold 106) [Fig 1] in a forming station (press section 104) [Fig 1] at least for endforming a preformed lid made from a material comprising natural fibres [0064]. KAMBERBEEK teaches the production of a preformed product that is later used to form the pressed product [0062]. KAMERBEEK further teaches the preformed lid comprising a top part and a side part circumference the top part [0060], wherein the manufacturing component (102) is adapted to contact an outer side of the preformed lid (106) to endform the preformed lid by exerting a first movement in an axial direction along a center axis of the manufacturing component [0025] and a later second movement in a second direction towards the side part of the preformed lid (lid piercing), wherein multiple side forming elements of the manufacturing component are arranged to exert the second movement and apply an outer pressure onto an outer side of the side part to form an undercut into the side part [0027]. KAMERBEEK further teaches the preformed cup may have an adjustable volume based on the two part formation method [0012].
Regarding the use of undercut in the mold design, KAMBERBEEK does not teach the undercut design. TAKIGAWA teaches the production of a molded preform product [0059] from natural fibers [0060] in a mold [0001]. This includes the formation of an undercut [0105]. TAKIGAWA further teaches that when an undercut is used the molded product can be released with no issue [0107]. It would be obvious to one skilled in the arts at the time of invention to use a known technique of end forming a preform with an undercut as shown by TAKIGAWA with the preformed material of KAMBERBEEK to produce a common natural fiber container. One would be motivated to combine the art based on the common use of natural fiber to form molded product and the success of both.
Regarding the second direction being perpendicular to the axial direction, KAMERBEEK further teaches the preformed lid comprising a top part and a side part circumference the top part [0060], wherein the manufacturing component (102) is adapted to contact an outer side of the preformed lid (106) to endform the preformed lid by exerting a first movement in an axial direction along a center axis of the manufacturing component [0025] and a later second movement in a second direction towards the side part of the preformed lid (lid piercing), wherein multiple side forming elements of the manufacturing component are arranged to exert the second movement and apply an outer pressure onto an outer side of the side part to form an undercut into the side part [0027]. One would expect no limitation to the movement of the lid without further restraint on the lid. This would allow the lid to move in a perpendicular direction as well. This teaches the limitation of “the second direction being perpendicular to the axial direction”.
For claim 29, KAMBERBEEK and TAKIGAWA teach the system according to claim 28, as above. KAMBERBEEK teaches the forming wherein the side forming members (106) [Fig 1] are arranged around the center axis. The molds have a shape allows for a space between side forming elements between the first and second end [0032]. This matches the instant limitation “wherein: the side forming elements are arranged around the center axis, and wherein the side forming elements are suitably shaped to provide a free space between adjacent side forming elements prior to exerting the second movement”.
For claim 30, KAMBERBEEK and TAKIGAWA teach the system according to claim 28, as above. KAMBERBEEK teaches a third member to form a third wall [abstract]. This meets the claim limitation “wherein: the manufacturing component comprises at least three side forming elements”.
For claim 31, KAMBERBEEK and TAKIGAWA teach the system according to claim 28, as above. KAMBERBEEK teaches the lid is circular [0057] with a lip (38) [Fig 2]. This teaches the limitation “wherein: the preformed lid is circular with a circumferencing side part”. KAMBERBEEK also teaches a circumferencing side part [Fig 1] pressing towards the center of the axis [0082]. This teaches the limitation “wherein the second direction is a radial direction towards the center axis and the side forming elements are arranged circularly around the center axis”.
For claim 32, KAMBERBEEK and TAKIGAWA teach the system according to claim 28, as above. KAMBERBEEK does not teach the undercut design. TAKIGAWA teaches a mold part (16 and 12) that develops the undercut [0173] that is directed outward axially (16 and 12) [Fig 13]. This teaches the limitation “wherein: the side forming elements each comprises an inner side directed towards the outer side of the side part, and wherein each inner side has a contour adapted to a desired shape of the undercut”.
For claim 33, KAMBERBEEK and TAKIGAWA teach the system according to claim 32, as above. TAKIGAWA teaches the forming elements that develop the undercut (16) circumference the side part forms (12 and 15) [Fig 13]. This teaches the limitation “wherein the side forming elements are suitably shaped to provide an undercut circumferencing the side part of the preformed lid”.
For claim 35, KAMBERBEEK and TAKIGAWA teach the system according to claim 28, as above. KAMBERBEEK teaches the system includes the forming station comprising the first tool (end) and a second tool (end) at least for endforming a preformed lid [abstract]: wherein the manufacturing component is the first tool (end 114) [0026]. KAMBERBEEK further teaches the manufacturing element also is configured to hold the capsule (molded product). The examiner understands this meets the carry limitation of the instant claim. This meets the limitation “second tool is adapted to at least carry the preformed lid”. KAMBERBEEK is silent to what drives the motion of the parts. TAKIGAWA teaches that the motion of the system (including motion of all molds) can be controlled by electric motor [0056]. This meets the limitation of “at least one motor system is adapted to move the first tool on top of the second tool with the preformed lid in between in the first movement and in the later second movement to move the side forming elements of the first tool towards the side part of the preformed lid and apply the outer pressure onto the outer side of the side part to form the undercut into the side part”.
For claim 36, KAMBERBEEK and TAKIGAWA teach the system according to claim 35, as above. TAKIGAWA teaches the second tool includes a support structure that supports the molded article throughout production [0053] which the examiner understands to include the outer pressure produced by the inner mold (12). This meets the limitation “the second tool is suitably shaped to at least support an inner side of the side part during application of the outer pressure to the outer side of the side part by the side forming elements, such that the undercut is reliably formed by the side forming elements”.
For claim 37, KAMBERBEEK and TAKIGAWA teach the system according to claim 35, as above. TAKIGAWA teaches the use of mold part (17b) that counters the inner mold and develops the undercut [Fig 14]. This meets the limitation of the instant claim “wherein: the second tool comprises a counterpart to support an inner side of the side part, where a contour of the counter part is adapted to a desired shape of the undercut at the inner side of the side part”.
For claim 38, KAMBERBEEK and TAKIGAWA teaches the system according to claim 37, as above. TAKIGAWA teaches that the counter part is a split block 17a and 17b are disposed in the movable block which moves to release the molded product [0105]. This meets the limitation “wherein: the counter part is divided in movable counterpart elements, which are adapted to move towards the center axis in order to release the end formed lid after being end formed”.
For claim 39, KAMBERBEEK and TAKIGAWA teaches the system according to claim 35, as above. TAKIGAWA teaches the use of the system to form the molded product [Fig 1] and a station that can produce a preform [0059]. This meets the limitation “wherein the system is a forming device, the forming device including: the forming station; and a preforming station”. KAMBERBEEK in view of TAKIGAWA teaches that the preform is a lid [0026 KAMBERBEEK] made from natural fibers [0064 KAMBERBEEK]. This meets the limitation “wherein the preforming station is adapted to perform a lid from the material comprising natural fibres”. The preforms of TAKIGAWA are made into a molded product. These preforms are also produced in the same system [0059]. These functions can be made into two separate systems. See MPEP 2144.04.
In re Dulberg, 289 F.2d 522, 523, 129 USPQ 348, 349 (CCPA 1961) (The claimed structure, a lipstick holder with a removable cap, was fully met by the prior art except that in the prior art the cap is "press fitted" and therefore not manually removable. The court held that "if it were considered desirable for any reason to obtain access to the end of [the prior art’s] holder to which the cap is applied, it would be obvious to make the cap removable for that purpose.").
This separation of TAKIGAWA invention meets the instant limitation “and the forming station is adapted to receive the preformed lid from the preforming station and to provide the endformed lid comprising the undercut within the side part of the endformed lid”.
For claim 40, KAMBERBEEK and TAKIGAWA teaches, the system according to claim 39, as above. TAKIGAWA teaches a movable mold support apparatus that supports the mold and preform allowing for advancing [0054]. This mold support holds and moves the mold with preform. The examiner understands these functions to be the same as the instant claim limitation “wherein: the forming device further comprises a transfer station transporting the preformed lid to the forming station for endforming the preformed lid”.
For claim 48, KAMBERBEEK and TAKIGAWA teach the system according to claim 35, as above. KAMBERBEEK teaches the system includes the forming station comprising the first tool (end) and a second tool (end) at least for endforming a preformed lid [abstract]: wherein the manufacturing component is the first tool (end 114) [0026]. KAMBERBEEK further teaches the manufacturing element also is configured to hold the capsule (molded product). Regarding the orientation the parts, KAMBERBEEK shows the parts are placed in a vertical orientation making the first tool mate with the second tool from above [Fig. 1]. KAMBERBEEK is silent to what drives the motion of the parts. TAKIGAWA teaches that the motion of the system (including motion of all molds) can be controlled by electric motor [0056]. KAMBERBEEK in view of TAKIGAWA teach the limitation of “wherein the at least one motor system is adapted to move the first tool and the second tool simultaneously to place the first tool on top of the second tool”.
Claim 34 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KAMERBEEK (US 20120231124 A1) and TOKIGAWA (US 20060131788 A1) in view of BABB (US 5730922 A).
For claim 34, KAMBERBEEK and TAKIGAWA teach the system according to claim 28, as above. KAMBERBEEK teaches that the molding walls may be coated with rubber elastic to improve the seal [0005]. KAMBERBEEK is silent to the friction or adhesion properties of the walls. BABB teaches the use of a coating laminate to lower the surface coefficient of friction [abstract]. This also aids in mold-release [col 28 line 35]. It would be obvious to one skilled in the arts at the time of invention to modify the system of KAMBERBEEK with the reduced friction material of BABB to produce a release aid for the mold walls. One would be motivated to combine the art based on the common use of laminates coating for molds. This meets the limitations “wherein: at least a part of surfaces of the manufacturing component intended to be in contact with the material of the preformed lid is made of a material with decreased friction or adhesion properties”.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEPHEN M RUSSELL whose telephone number is (571)272-6907. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri: 7:30 to 4:30 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, Abbas Rashid can be reached at (571) 270-7457. 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.
/S.M.R./ Examiner, Art Unit 1748
/Abbas Rashid/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1748