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 Arguments
Applicant argued that Sakai's independent claims 1 and 8 recite "a plurality of cavities communicating with said pot through runners" (col. 9, lines 35-36; col. 10, lines 21-22). Reducing the apparatus and method of Sakai to a single cavity would render Sakai unsatisfactory for its intended purpose, this argument is persuasive. Hence a new rejection with Guha (20200122413) and Stiesdel (US 20090267436) is discussed below.
Applicant Further, applicant argued in Claim 29, and 31 applicant respectfully disagrees with the Examiner's interpretation of Figure 3 of Guha and points out the absence of any disclosure of "distribution ducts and/or runners are arranged at varying heights relative to a longitudinal axis of the tool" in paragraph [0016]. Instead, paragraph [0016] teaches: "FIG. 3 is a plan view of a multiport RTM system 30 with a mold 32 with four injection ports 34A-34C for staggered resin injection. Also, applicant argues that arranging runners at varying heights is not a mere rearrangement - it enables multi- directional flow from different elevations and directions, ensuring complete encapsulation of the component.
However, examiner asserts that even Guha did not disclose distribution ducts and/or runners are arranged at varying heights relative to a longitudinal axis of the tool (Figure 3-4, mold-32, [0018]). Although Guha explicitly discloses that configuration ensures that the resin that is injected into the mold cavity and the fibers contained in the resin do not take up a unidirectional flow pattern. By preventing such unidirectional flow of the resin within the mold cavity, the fibers contained in the flowing resin remain randomized in terms of direction and orientation, which results in a stronger molded part ([0018]) and the number possible combinations and configurations for activating and injecting resin through the various injection ports are possibilities taught by Guha ([0019]). Therefore, this arrangement would be mere obvious to one ordinary skilled in the location as shifting the location of an element would not have modified the operation of device as Guha’s teaching explicitly stated that unidirectional flow is not favorable for a stronger molded part .
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.
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.
Claim(s) 11-13, 18, 20-22, 28-30, 31-35 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guha (20200122413) and Stiesdel (US 20090267436)
Regarding Claim 11, Guha discloses a method for encapsulating or potting components, at least in some regions, by means of transfer molding (abstract), and introducing potting compound into the tool via distribution ducts and/or runners (Figure 3-4, [0016]-[0018]). Further, Guha discloses, wherein the potting compound comprises a thermosetting material ([0014]). Guha discloses that a single tool cavity fed by distribution ducts and/or runners into …..(Figure 3-4, mold-42, [0017]). Guha teaches single cavity with multiple runners for the purpose of multidirectional flow pattern which results in a stronger molded part ([0018]).
10. Guha didn’t particularly disclose the method of inserting a component into a tool of a device for transfer molding. In the related field of endeavor pertaining to the art of transfer molding, Stiesdel discloses inserting a component into a tool of a device for transfer molding, the component being a rotor or stator of an electric machine and introducing potting compound into the tool via distribution ducts and/or runners and encapsulating the component/rotor, wherein the potting compound comprises a thermosetting material (Figure 2, [0024], [0037] rotor-1, runners-7b, resin-8).
11. It would be obvious for one ordinary skilled in the art prior to applicant’s invention combine the teaching of Guha with the teaching of Stiesdel for the purpose of to manufacture device such as rotor is firmly bonded to the cavity protecting from environmental influence ([0037]).
12. Regarding Claim 12, Guha discloses feeding the distribution ducts and/or runners with the potting compound (Figure 3-4, runner 34A-34D, [0016]).
13. Regarding Claim 13, Guha discloses, wherein varying quantities of the potting compound are introduced via the distribution ducts and/or runners (Figure 3-4, number of injection ports can vary).
14. Regarding Claim 18, Guha discloses, wherein the potting compound is introduced at varying pressures and/or with temporal offset ([0020], resin injectors are preprogrammed into a numerical controller or computing device with a processor and a storage medium for storing and executing the programs).
15. Regarding Claim 20, Guha discloses, wherein the tool includes a tool cavity in which the component has been arranged (Figures 3-4, mold -32 with a single cavity), and further comprising: filling the tool cavity with the potting compound contrary to the force of gravity (Figure 3, [0020]). Further, Guha discloses that a single tool cavity fed by distribution ducts and/or runners into.(Figure 3-4, mold-32, [0018]).
17. Regarding Claim 22, Steisdel discloses electric machine, including a rotor and/or stator that has been embedded in potting compound or potted therewith, at least in some regions, by the method according to claim 11(Figure Figure 2, [0024], [0037] rotor-1, runners-7b, resin-8).
18. Regarding Claim 28, Stiesdel discloses the distribution ducts and/or runners are arranged in a distributed manner, whereby the component is subjected to transfer molding from several sides and/or positions (Figure 2, [0037]).
19. Regarding Claim 29, Guha discloses a method for encapsulating or potting components, at least in some regions, by means of transfer molding (Figure 3, Claim 1). Guha discloses that the distribution ducts and/or runners are arranged in a longitudinal axis (Figure 3, [0016], mold-32, runners-34a, b, c,d). Guha particularly did not disclose distribution ducts and/or runners are arranged at varying heights relative to a longitudinal axis of the tool (Figure 3-4, mold-32, [0018]), this arrangement would be mere obvious to one ordinary skilled in the location as shifting the location of an element would not have modified the operation of device. The particular placement of an element was held to be obvious. It has generally been recognized that to shift location of parts when the operation of the device is not otherwise changed is within the level of ordinary skill in the art, In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70; In re Gazda, 104 USPQ 400. See MPEP 2144.04
30. Guha discloses the claimed invention except for the rearrangement of runners are arranged at varying heights relative to a longitudinal axis of the tool . It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to rearrange the multiple ports , since it have been held that a mere rearrangement of element without modification of the operation of the device involves only routine skill in the art. One would have been motivated to rearrange Guha’s injection ports/runners- for the purpose of injecting resin at different times ([0016])
31. Regarding claim 30 Guha discloses wherein the distribution ducts and/or runners are distributed about a periphery of the tool (Figure 3-4).
32. Regarding Claim 31 Guha discloses method for encapsulating or potting components, at least in some regions, by means of transfer molding, and encapsulating the component with the potting compound, wherein the potting compound comprises a thermosetting material (Figure 3, Col 4 line 32-33, runner-37). Guha discloses that the distribution ducts and/or runners are arranged in a longitudinal axis (Figure 3, [0016], mold-32, runners-34a, b, c,d). Guha particularly did not disclose distribution ducts and/or runners are arranged at varying heights relative to a longitudinal axis of the tool (Figure 3-4, mold-32, [0018]), this arrangement would be mere obvious to one ordinary skilled in the location as shifting the location of an element would not have modified the operation of device. The particular placement of an element was held to be obvious. It has generally been recognized that to shift location of parts when the operation of the device is not otherwise changed is within the level of ordinary skill in the art, In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70; In re Gazda, 104 USPQ 400. See MPEP 2144.04
30. Guha discloses the claimed invention except for the rearrangement of runners are arranged at varying heights relative to a longitudinal axis of the tool . It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to rearrange the multiple ports , since it have been held that a mere rearrangement of element without modification of the operation of the device involves only routine skill in the art. One would have been motivated to rearrange Guha’s injection ports/runners- for the purpose of injecting resin at different times ([0016]).
Guha didn’t particularly disclose the method of inserting a component into a tool of a device for transfer molding. In the related field of endeavor pertaining to the art of transfer molding, Stiesdel discloses inserting a component into a tool of a device for transfer molding, the component being a rotor or stator of an electric machine and introducing potting compound into the tool via distribution ducts and/or runners and encapsulating the component/rotor, wherein the potting compound comprises a thermosetting material (Figure 2, [0024], [0037] rotor-1, runners-7b, resin-8).
11. It would be obvious for one ordinary skilled in the art prior to applicant’s invention combine the teaching of Guha with the teaching of Stiesdel for the purpose of to manufacture device such as rotor is firmly bonded to the cavity protecting from environmental influence ([0037]).
33. Regarding Claim 32, Guha/Steisdel disclose wherein the distribution ducts and/or runners are arranged in a distributed manner, whereby the component is subjected to transfer molding from several sides and/or positions (Figure 2, runner-7b, Steisdel).
32. Regarding Claim 33, Guha discloses wherein the tool has a single tool cavity into which the component has been arranged, the single tool cavity being fed by the distribution ducts and/or runners (Figures 3-4, [0016]-[0018]).
33. Regarding Claim 34 Guha/Steisdel disclose wherein a portion of the distribution ducts and/or runners is arranged axially, such that the rotor or stator is subjected to transfer molding both radially and axially (Figure 2, runner-7b, Steisdel)_.
35. Regarding Claim 35 Guha/Steisdel disclose , wherein a portion of the distribution ducts and/or runners is arranged axially, such that the rotor or stator is subjected to transfer molding both radially and axially (Figure 2, runner-7b, Steisdel).
32. Claim(s) 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 unpatentable over Guha (20200122413) and Stiesdel (US 20090267436) as applied in Claim 11 in view of Chong (US 4569814).
33. Regarding Claims 14-15, Guha discloses that potting compound/resin is injected into the cavity through the runner as explained in claim 11 (Figures 3-4, [0018]) but didn’t particularly disclose that , wherein the potting compound is provided in the form of , differently-sized pellets. In the related field of molding art, Chong discloses that pellets are used in transfer molding which could be of different size. (Col 1line 57-66).
22. It would be obvious for one ordinary skilled in the art prior to invention to modify Guha’s teaching with that of Chong’s of using pellets for transfer moulding for the purpose of improved method of handling and transportation of the material to the mold (Col 1 line 57-59).
23. Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 unpatentable over Guha (20200122413) and Stiesdel (US 20090267436) and Chong (US 4569814) as applied in Claim 15 further in view of Lee US 6106259.
24. Regarding Claim 17, Guha discloses, wherein the potting compound comprises a thermosetting material ([0014]) but didn’t disclose that the component is an epoxy resin. In the related field of art of transfer molding, Lee discloses wherein the thermosetting material comprises a one-component epoxy resin (Col 1 line 26-30).
25. It would be obvious for one ordinary skilled in the art prior to applicant’s invention combine the teaching of Guha with the teaching of Lee’s epoxy resin for the purpose of semiconductor devices (Col 1 line 26-30, Lee)
26. Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 unpatentable over Guha (20200122413)and Stiesdel (US 20090267436) in view of Simpson, (US 20060197244).
27. Regarding Claim 19, Guha discloses a method for encapsulating or potting components, at least in some regions, by means of transfer molding (Figure 3, claim 1) but didn’t disclose that applying an underpressure in the tool. However, in the related field of endeavor pertaining to the art of transfer molding, Simpson discloses, an arrangement for providing underpessure like venting or vacuum to the mold/tool ([0005], [0020]).
28. It would be obvious for one ordinary skilled in the art prior to applicant’s invention combine the teaching of Guha with the teaching of Simpson venting/vacuum for the purpose of minimizing the formation of air pockets during the process.
Conclusion
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DEBJANI ROY whose telephone number is (571)272-8019. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30-5:30 pm.
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 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.
/DEBJANI ROY/Examiner, Art Unit 1741
/ALISON L HINDENLANG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1741
Prosecution Insights