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 the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
Without additional reference, or explanation in the specification, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be enabled to make a mold having a plurality of heat accumulation reference points in the base body as “reverse deduction” does not in and of itself provide sufficient guidance. Such can best be explained via the wands factors as pertains to this limitation.
The breadth of the claims: the claim recites a cold gas runner and that broadly defines its path as one connected by heat accumulation reference points by means of flow mold flow analysis obtained by reverse deduction. This limitation is almost infinitely broad due to a lack of clarity (112b set forth below), but also because stating that a structural feature (path connected by points) is defined by a mathematical feature (fold flow analysis/ reverse deduction) requires some description of how to correlate the math to structure. Such is not present in the claims, nor defined by specification, nor part of the technological oeuvre thus lacking in general definition. One is left entirely unsure of the structural scope of the path of the cold gas runner.
The state of the prior art: searches in the field of B29C (plastic molds, the appropriate designation of the broad class of invention) show no recognition in the art of a manner of associating runners’ path via mold flow analysis or reverse deduction (including where synonyms are searched).
The level of one of predictability in the art: heat accumulation is going to at least partially be determined by flows of materials through the mold and such flows are largely affected by the particular properties of the materials chosen, thus selecting a structural feature based upon the material worked upon, when there is not recitation of material worked upon, leads to a highly unpredictable determination of reference points.
The amount of direction provided by the inventor: within the provided disclosure are only three references to reference points and one reference to reverse deduction. These are cited with minimal context and additional direction.
The existence of working examples: the drawings are general, and the specification lacks measurements, examples, tables, and/or further details that would guide one of ordinary skill in the art.
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 1-9 are 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.
The scope of the claims cannot be determined because the limitations’ attempt to delineate the properties of the plurality of heat accumulation reference points is vague and indefinite. For one matter, it is unclear whether the claims are attempting to set forth either the number of reference points, or the location of such reference points. Beyond that there is no clarity with regard to how a reverse deduction correlates to either location, or number of points, or both. This is particular to the newly added limitations of claims 1 and 6.
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) 1, 3-5, 7, and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Feigenblum (US 2022/0088838; hereafter ‘838) and further in view of Sachs et al. (US 5,775,402; hereafter ‘402) and Schneebauer et al. (US 2020/0156301; hereafter ‘301).
Claim 1: Regarding claim 1, ‘838, directed to a mold with a mold temperature control structure (Abstract), discloses a mold comprising:
a base body (Fig. 1, mold dies 111 and 112) having a molding surface (¶37 discloses the mold comprising two die and each die comprising one or more molding surfaces; Fig. 1, surface 121), wherein the molding surface has at least one mold cavity (¶37 discloses molding surface forming mold cavity), a hot runner with a predetermined path is provided inside the base body (Fig. 2, heating channel 285) which is connected to a heating source (¶47), and inside of the hot runner is filled with a working fluid (¶62 discloses the use of heat transfer fluid in channel 385 and ¶22 discloses the embodiments can be contemplated individually or according to any technically operative combination and 285 and 385 are both channels, thus ‘838 discloses the channels 285 filled with heat transfer fluid i.e. working fluid), a cold fluid runner is provided between the hot runner inside the base body and the mold cavity (Fig. 1, cooling channel 131), wherein the cold fluid runner is adapted for the circulation of a heat transfer fluid (¶48).
‘838 fails to disclose the mold comprising: an irregular path for the cold fluid runner, a plurality of brackets are arranged inside the cold fluid runner, a heating device located outside the base body and communicating with both ends of the hot runner through a circulation pipeline, wherein the working fluid is maintained at a predetermined temperature by the heating device and circuits in the hot runner and the circulation pipeline in one direction; and an air control device communicated with one end of the cold fluid runner, wherein the air control device injects medium and low temperature gas from one end of the cold gas runner, and discharges from the other end of the cold gas runner such that the medium and low temperature gas exchange temperature with the base body.
‘402, directed to a mold with a mold temperature control structure (Abstract), teaches a mold having a cold fluid runner in arranged in an irregular path (Fig. 5, cooling channel 6) and a plurality of brackets are arranged inside the cold fluid runner (Fig. 6, radial fins 11 and other geometries 12 arranged in cooling channel). ‘402 teaches the brackets having geometries which have been optimized for high surface area which increases heat transfer efficiency (Col. 10, lines 59-67). ‘402 teaches a control structure for cycling the working fluid through the channels (Fig. 11), specifically the heating device (Fig. 11, reservoir/hot tank 62) located outside the base body (Fig. 11, mold 60) and communicating with both ends of the channel through a circulation pipeline (Fig. 11, flow path 67) and maintaining the temperature at a specific temperature (Col. 14, lines 6-26). ‘402 teaches a control structure for injecting the working fluid through the channels (Fig. 12), specifically a device (Fig. 11, reservoir/cold tank 62) communicated with one end of the channel, wherein the tank injects the medium from one end of the channel and discharges the medium from the other end of the chancel such that the medium exchanges temperature with the base body (Fig. 11, flow path 69; Col. 14, lines 6-26 teaches the cold medium (i.e. oil) circulating via flow path through the channel to cool the mold, thus it is apparent heat transfer is exchanged between the medium and mold as it travels through the channel from one end to the other). ‘402 teaches this control designed for rapid thermal cycling (Col. 14, lines 6-8).
‘838 and ‘402 are analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of endeavor of molds with mold temperature control structures. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the cold fluid runner of ‘838 and incorporate the disclosure of ‘402 and include brackets (i.e. radial fins) in the cooling channel. It would have been obvious to do so to increase heat transfer and have improved heat transfer efficiency. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the heating source and cooling source of ‘838 and incorporate the reservoirs and pathways as taught by ‘402. It would have been obvious to do so to have control of the temperature of the fluids moving through the channel and have rapid thermal cycling.
‘838 in view of ‘402 is silent on the device communicated with the cold fluid runner to be an air control device and injecting gas.
‘301, directed to a mold with a mold temperature control structures (Fig. 4 temperature control apparatus 3 in communication with mold 4), teaches using a temperature control device, specifically a cooling device for cooling refrigerant fluids and gas (¶s 48-54 and 113).
‘838, ‘402, and ‘301 are analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of endeavor of molds with mold temperature control structures. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the cooling fluid device of ‘838 in view of ‘402 and use gas as the cooling fluid and a device for cooling gas as taught by ‘301 as gas and air are fluids and are alternatives for fluid coolant. The substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143 (I)(B).
The recitation “with a variotherm mold temperature structure” has not been given patentable weight because the recitation occurs in the preamble. A preamble is generally not accorded any patentable weight where it merely recites the purpose of a process or the intended use of a structure, and where the body of the claim does not depend on the preamble for completeness but, instead the process steps or structural limitations are able to stand alone. See MPEP 2111.02.
The examiner notes that the method of determining heat accumulation reference points (by reverse deduction or otherwise) is moot in an apparatus claim, unless it is clear that this directly correlates to a structural feature.
The examiner further notes that a determination of temperature of the gas through the apparatus is not a structural feature of the claimed invention but is rather a non-limiting method recitation or an intended use and does not further limit the claim.
Claim 1 (formerly Claim 2): Regarding this, ‘838 in view of ‘402 and ‘301 discloses the mold of claim 1. ‘402 discloses wherein each of the brackets (Fig. 7, short stubs 13 and mounds 14) arranged in the cold gas runner (Fig. 7 shows the stubs and mounds in the cooling channel) in one of three-dimensional staggered, spaced, dislocated manners, or a combination thereof (Fig. 7 shows the stubs and mounds in one of three-dimensional staggered and spaced manners).
Claim 3: Regarding claim 3, ‘838 in view of ‘402 and ‘301 discloses the mold of claim 1. ‘838 in view of ‘402 and ‘301 discloses wherein the mold comprises the base body, the hot runner, the cold gas runner and the brackets as applied to claim 1.
The recitation of “integrally made by three-dimensional printing” is a recitation regarding the method of forming the mold and the patentability of a product, the mold, does not depend on its method of production. The determination of patentability is based on the product apparatus itself, In re Brown, 173 USPQ 685, 688.
It is Applicant's burden to prove that an unobvious difference exists, In re Marosi, 218 USPQ 289, 292-293 (CAFC 1983), and Applicant must show that different methods of manufacture produce articles having inherently different characteristics, Ex: parte Skinner, 2 USPQ2d 1788. See MPEP § 2113.
Claim 4: Regarding claim 4, ‘838 in view of ‘402 and ‘301 discloses the mold of claim 3. ‘402 discloses wherein the design of the channels is written into a CAD model during the mold design process and during fabrication a powder material is deposited in layers and a polymer or inorganic binder is selectively printed on each layer (Col. 6, lines 37-55). Thus ‘402 discloses wherein part of the predetermined areas of the base body is integrated with different materials as the design is predetermined and the base body is printed based on the design using powder material and a binder.
Claim 5: Regarding claim 5, ‘838 in view of ‘402 and ‘301 discloses the mold of claim 3. ‘402 discloses wherein the design of the channels is written into a CAD model during the mold design process and during fabrication, three-dimensional printing, the powder material is deposited in layers and a polymer or inorganic biner is selectively printed on each layer (Col. 6, lines 37-55). Thus ‘402 teaches the fabrication of the brackets contained in the cooling channels to be made of different material, such as a powder material and a polymer or inorganic binder.
Claim 9: Regarding claim 9, ‘838 in view of ‘402 and ‘301 discloses the mold of claim 1. ‘838 discloses wherein the base body is one of a male mold or female mold (Fig. 1, die 111 and 112).
Claim(s) 6-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Feigenblum (US 2022/0088838; hereafter ‘838) and further in view of Sachs et al. (US 5,775,402; hereafter ‘402) and Schneebauer et al. (US 2020/0156301; hereafter ‘301) as applied to claim 1 and further in view of Lu (US 2022/0048221; hereafter ‘221).
Claim 6: Regarding claim 6, ‘838 in view of ‘402 and ‘301 discloses the mold of claim 1. ‘402 discloses wherein the base body is provided with a low-density area at the heat accumulation reference point (Fig. 5 illustrates cooling channel within base body (i.e. mold 8); Col. 4, lines 37-51 discloses the cooling channels being used for heat transfer and the cooling channels being completely open or filled with porous material, thus it is apparent all points along the cooling channel accumulates heat to transfer heat and all points along the cooling channel is a low-density area as the channel has less mass per volume relative to the surrounding solid area). ‘402 discloses a plurality of runner branches provided inside the low-density area (Col. 6, lines 15-36 teaches the cooling channels can take a variety of paths through the mold which includes branches or interconnected configurations). (the examiner notes that due to the presence of “or” with the added limitation, the further limitation is optional)
‘402 fails to disclose the two ends of each runner branch respectively connected to the cold gas runner and the mold cavity.
‘221, directed to a mold with a temperature control structure (Abstract), teaches a mold with a gas channels for cooling (Fig. 1, mold 10 with gas channels 11) and the gas channels having runner branches (Fig. 1, separation sections 114). ‘221 teaches the runner branches having two ends which are respectively connected to the cold gas runner and the mold surface (¶21 teaches the multiple separation sections (i.e. runner branches) in communication with the main section of the gas channel and the outer surface of the mold). ‘221 teaches the outlets of the runner branches arranged on the surface of the base body (i.e. mold) such that the gas is able to flow out of the mold by diffusion and ejected onto the molded work piece (¶s 22 and 26)
‘838, ‘402, ‘301, and ‘221 are analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of endeavor of molds with temperature control structures. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the low-density area (i.e. channels) of ‘838 in view of ‘402 and ‘301 and incorporate the runner branches (i.e. separation sections) extending from the branch to the mold surface, which includes the mold cavity surface, as taught by ‘221. It would have been obvious to do so to eject the gas through the mold to the molded workpiece.
Claim 7: Regarding claim 7, ‘838 in view of ‘402, ‘301, and ‘221 discloses the mold of claim 6. ‘402 discloses wherein the low-density area is located in the mold cavity (Fig. 5 shows the cooling channel 6 (i.e. low-density area) in the mold cavity and Col. 4, lines 37-51 discloses the cooling channels being completely open or filled with porous material, thus the cooling channel is a low-density area as it is apparent the channel has less mass per volume relative to the surrounding solid area ‘402).
Claim 8: Regarding claim 8, ‘838 in view of ‘402 and ‘301 discloses the mold of claim 1. ‘402 discloses the structure for controlling the temperature of the mold during rapid thermal cycling (Col. 14, lines 6-26).
‘838 in view of ‘402 and ‘301 fail to disclose wherein the heating device has a temperature sensor to detect the temperature of the working fluid.
‘221, directed to a mold with a temperature control structure (Abstract), teaches wherein the heating device (Fig. 3, intake device 20A) has a temperature sensor (Fig. 3, temperature probe 40) to detect the temperature of the working fluid (¶24) after the gas is injected into the channel and while the gas is heated.
‘838, ‘402, ‘301, and ‘221 are analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of endeavor of molds with temperature control structures. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the heating device of ‘838 in view of ‘402 and ‘301 and incorporate the temperature sensor (i.e. probe) as taught by ‘221. It would have been obvious to do so to sense the temperature of the fluid as the fluid is being heated.
"A person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known option within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense." KSR int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727,82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
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 Joseph S Del Sole whose telephone number is (571)272-1130. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9-5.
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, Yvonne Eyler. 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.
JOSEPH S. DEL SOLE
Supervisory Patent Examiner
Art Unit 4100
/JOSEPH S DEL SOLE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1763