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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
The amendment filed September 23, 2025 has been received and entered. With the entry of the amendment, claims 11-27 are withdrawn, and claims 1-10 are pending for examination.
Election/Restrictions
Claims 11-27 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on August 19, 2024.
It is noted that Invention I, claims 1-10, and the species of (a) rotating the three dimensional article about an axis sufficient to remove excess coating from the article were elected.
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 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thompson (US 2003/0190454) in view of Sato et al (US 5151276), and Haserodt (US 1863114).
Claims 1, 4: Thompson provides a method of coating a three dimensional article (formed substrate appears to be 52) in a mold (note 0033), where a quantity of flowing coating material (in mold coating material) is deposited onto a surface of a form factor (mold half) 20 (as shown in figure 3, the coating will deposit on/contact both the surface of the form factor 20 and the substrate 52, which is not prevented by the claims, and note 0033, coating appears to be 64 in figure 3). The in mold coating material is described as flowable material that would cure (note 0037), and therefore, would predictably and acceptably be in the form of a liquid material. The deposition includes providing a form factor with a surface and at least one opening in the form factor surface (note coating injector 60 and inlet 62), and flowing a coating material thorough the at least one opening of the form factor surface and over the form factor surface (note figures 2, 3, where the form factor 20 has a surface 44, and an opening (note area of 62) through which coating material is flowed out and over the form factor surface, note figure 3, and 0025, 0033). A surface of the three dimensional article/substrate 52 is also contacting the coating on the form factor surface 20 (note figure 3), where the form factor surface 20 nests with the three dimensional article 52 (note figure 3). The coating material is coalesced on the surface of the three dimensional article 52 for coverage (note figure 3, 0033, 0036-0037).
(A) As to the form factor 20 comprising an elastic surface, Thompson does not describe the specific material of the mold, but it is used for molding the substrate and coating, where the substrate is introduced as molten polymer (note 0033), indicating the providing of material for molding in liquid form, and the in mold coating is also polymer/resin material such as silicone resin (note 0039-0049). Thompson also provides curing the in mold coating materials (note 0036-0037),
Sato describes a molding method for resin (such as silicon resin, and the like), where a mold (including an upper and lower mold, 7, 8, made of metal), is provided, where a wafer (article) is provided and a resin space is provided where resin is to be provided at a peripheral portion of the wafer between the upper and lower molds, where in use, resin is injected into the resin space and the resin is cured, forming an insulating resin mold shape formed at the peripheral portion of the wafer (note figures 1, 2, 5, column 1, lines 5-10, column 2, lines 25-45, column 3, lines 10-40), thus providing molding of liquid onto an article. The mold can be heated to allow for heat curing of the resin (note column 3, lines 20-40). Sato describes coating the upper and lower mold surfaces that would contact the resin with an elastic material 22, where the resin being molded does not adhere to the elastic material 22, such that mold release characteristic of the molded resin is improved and adhesion of the molding resin 2 to the upper and lower mold are prevented (note column 2, line 55 to column 3, line 10, column 3, lines 40-68).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Thompson to provide that the mold surfaces that would contact the in mold coating/resin, such as the surface 44 of form factor 20, have a coated surface of elastic material (which would give an elastic surface on the form factor that would be the surface over which the liquid coating material flows) as suggested by Sato to provide a desirable mold release characteristic and prevent adhesion of the liquid coating resin to the mold/form factor surfaces, since Thompson indicates molding with injected/flowed resin using mold/form factors, and Sato indicates that in a similar process with mold surfaces, etc. the mold surface that contacts the resin can be coated with an elastic coating material, giving an elastic surface that the resin contacts, which provides a desirable mold release characteristic and prevent adhesion of the liquid coating resin to the mold/form factor surfaces.
(B) As to the liquid/in mold coating flowing beyond a periphery of the nested form factor surface and three dimensional article, Thompson provides molding between two surfaces (form factor 20 and substrate 52 on other mold surface 30), where there is a meeting of the surfaces 30 and 20 at the periphery of the substrate (figure 3, note parting line 42, 0025). Thompson notes how excess material can occur (at the sprue) and be removed after the molding (note 0033, 0037).
Haserodt further demonstrates that when providing molding material between two surfaces (one can be considered the form factor 5, and one can be considered a three dimensional article surface 9), where it is indicated that the three dimensional article surface 9 (plunger 9) can rotate against the form factor (mold 5) surface to help facilitate the flow of plastic material 10 into shape between the two surfaces (note figures 1, 2, page 1, lines 75-85). Haserodt further indicates how material will be squeezed out from the periphery of the nested form factor 5 and three dimensional article 9 (note figures 1, 2, page 2, lines 25-30, figure 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Thompson in view of Sato to additionally rotate the three dimensional article on the mold surface to rotate against/on the form factor as suggested by Haserodt to help facilitate to the flow the plastic/coating material, and where the liquid flows beyond the periphery of the nested form factor surface and three dimensional article, since Thompson is flowing plastic/resin coating material between the form factor and three dimensional article surface in a molding type process where mold surfaces meet at the periphery of the three dimensional article, and Haserodt indicates that when flowing plastic material between the form factor and another three dimensional article surface in a molding type process it would be known to rotate the surface that can be the three dimensional article to help facilitate the flow of the material, where the material will flow beyond the periphery of the nested form factor surface and three dimensional article, where Thompson shows how it is known to remove excess material after molding (with the sprue area removal). This rotation would also meet the requirements of claim 4.
Claims 2, 3: further when providing such rotating the article as for claims 1, 4 above, it is indicated that the rotating process (which rotates the three dimensional article 9 in Haserdot about an axis, figures 1, 2, claim 1, noting how the extruded excess occurs, the rotation would be about an axis) can further extrude excess (so is at a speed sufficient to remove such excess, note page 2, lines 75-90, claim 1), as part of coalescing the liquid coating material (as desired by claim 2) and would further meter the liquid by removing excess (as desired by claim 3), and therefore, it would be suggested to further provide such metering extruding of excess to further help provide the amount/thickness of coating actually desired, in case too much resin coating is initially provided.
Claim 5: in Thompson, the flowing step (flowing a liquid coating . . over the form factor surface” as in claim 1) can be considered as flood coating the surface of the three dimensional article 52 as the liquid is injected on the surface and flows out over the surface (note figure 3 and 0033).
Claim 6: in Thompson, the form factor 20 is configured to mold to the shape of the article during the contacting step (note figure 3, 0033, where shape of the coating is molded to shape of the article and the mold (form factor surface, substrate surface) are in a controlled position providing a shape to the coating, note figure 3). Furthermore, with the pressure used (note 0022), and the elasticity of the surface, it would at least have been predictably acceptable to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide that the form factor at the surface is at least configured to mold/shape to the article during the contacting step, which can also be considered to continue after the continuous flowing stopped, because there would be a continuous flowing occurring as part of the step.
Claim 7: as to the surface of the article as concave, Thompson shows that the surface is convexly shaped on the side being coated (figures 3), however, as per MPEP 2144.04(IV)(B), adjustment to a specific shape, such as concave, would be a matter of choice obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Claim 8: furthermore, as to the surface of the article as symmetrical, this is shown in Thompson, note figure 3.
Claim 9: as to the surface being asymmetrically shaped, Thompson shows symmetrical, however, as per MPEP 2144.04(IV)(B), adjustment to a specific shape, such as asymmetrical, would be a matter of choice obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thompson in view of Sato and Haserodt as applied to claims 1-9 above, and further in view of Loh et al (US 2008/0044934).
Claim 10: as to the three dimensional article (substrate 52 in Thompson) retained by a vacuum with a pressure adjacent a surface of the article opposite to the surface of the article to be coated which is lower than the pressure adjacent the surface of the article to be coated, Loh further indicates that when molding by providing a substrate in a mold and providing liquid resin in the mold adjacent to the substrate, it would be conventional to hold the substrate against a mold surface with a vacuum when applying the resin to the other side of the surface, would be to other side of the substrate since from opposite mold surface (note 0066-0068). Since held by a vacuum, the pressure on the opposite surface of the side to be coated would be lower than the pressure on the adjacent coating side surface (so as to retain on the top mold surface in Loh).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Thompson in view of Sato and Haserodt to have the three dimensional substrate 52 held in the mold by a vacuum, where the vacuum creates a pressure adjacent the surface of the three dimensional article opposite the surface of the article to be coated which is lower than the pressure adjacent the surface of the article to be coated as suggested by Loh with an expectation of predictably acceptable holding of the substrate/article in place for the coating to be applied, since in Thompson, placement of substrate 52 against mold 30 (figure 3) is provided, and the coating surface faces the other mold side (form factor 20 where coating provided on that side in the molding cavity, figure 3), and Loh indicates that with similar placement, the substrate can be held to the non-coating mold side wall with a vacuum, which would give the pressure on the opposite surface of the side of the three dimensional article to be coated would be lower than the pressure on the adjacent coating side surface as claimed (note while pressure in Thompson is on the side of the substrate without coating, note 0023, it would have been obvious to reverse this and have the pressure on the side with coating (making form factor 20 the movable mold) as indicated by MPEP 2144.04(VI)(A), where reversal of parts was considered an obvious modification, and also note MPEP 2144.04(VI)(C) where rearrangement of parts also an obvious matter of design choice).
Lemelson (US 3875275) also notes rotating a mold to help properly distribute the material for form the molding over the surface (note column 5, lines 40-65).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed September 23, 2025 have been fully considered.
Note the adjustment to the rejections due to the amendments to the claims, with the new reference to Thompson used, and Ditto and the optional reference to Ichiki withdrawn from use.
It is argued that the claims now require the liquid flow beyond a periphery of the nested form factor surface and three dimensional article, and that Ditto does not teach or suggest this, providing a seal to prevent material from escaping the mold boundaries, and the references to Sato or Ichiki or other references cited do not cure these issues.
The Examiner has reviewed these arguments, however, the rejections above are maintained. The primary reference now used to Thompson has the two mold halves (one of which is form factor 20) joined at parting line 42 that includes the periphery of the nested form factor surface, where it is not indicated that the coating is prevented from flowing beyond the periphery of the nested from factor surface and three dimensional article, and Haserodt indicates how it would be conventional for coating to flow beyond the periphery of nested mold/form factor surfaces, and also the rotation desired by dependent claims to help flow the coating to provide coverage, suggesting the conventionality of such flow of the coating.
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 KATHERINE A BAREFORD whose telephone number is (571)272-1413. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 6:00 am -3:30 pm, 2nd F 6:00 am -2:30 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, GORDON BALDWIN can be reached at 571-272-5166. 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.
/KATHERINE A BAREFORD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1718
Prosecution Insights