DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE
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
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission has been entered.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9-10 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Applicant’s arguments regarding claims 9-10 are persuasive.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered.
Applicant argues the prior art lattice is not optimized for turbulent flow.
Examiner does not find this persuasive because the drawing of the prior art structure is the same or substantially similar to the structure shown in the present application, e.g., compare figure 12 of Joubert to figure 12 of the present application. Also, it is well known that turbulent flow dissolves a soluble material faster than laminar flow. Thus, it would have been obvious to do as claimed since the purpose of the Joubert core structure is to increase the rate of removal of the core.
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 24-26 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 written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
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.
Claim(s) 25 is/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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
In reference to claim 25, the limitation is unclear as to what preventing a feature means in this context.
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 1-6, 11-13, 22, 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haas (US 20220111563 A1) and further in view of Joubert (FR 3104042 A1).
In reference to claim 1, Haas discloses a method of molding an article, the method (“method of manufacturing molded articles may comprise providing a mold having the core (made of the fiber-reinforced soluble substance), flowing a material into the mold, and dissolving the soluble substance with the solvent after the material has begun to harden” [P0041]) comprising:
positioning a dissolvable insert within a mold, the dissolvable insert … the dissolvable insert monolithically formed; (see Fig 7 at shows an insert 10 in a mold and the insert is illustrated as a single part; this reads on monolithic [note, Joubert also teaches a monolithic structure, described below])
filling the mold with material to form an article within the mold and about the dissolvable insert such that the dissolvable insert forms internal features of the article; and (Fig 7 element 30; and “plastic melt may be injected (under high pressure) into the mold” [P0042])
at least partially dissolving the dissolvable insert from within the article (Fig 9 element 38; and, “core may then be removed from the molded article by dissolving the soluble substance with the solvent, preferably (hot) water or water vapor.” [P0042])
Haas does not disclose that the dissolvable insert comprises a porous core enclosed and sealed from a mold void by an outer surface of the dissolvable insert.
In the same field of endeavor or reasonably pertinent to the particular problem faced by the inventor, mold tooling and techniques for making hollow parts (title), Joubert discloses a similar method (P0005) and uses a porous core that is sealed from a mold void by an outer surface (“core 6 has a wall 11 delimiting the porous internal structure” [P0045] and see Fig 4) in order to provide improved removal from the finished part (e.g., “the core is removed more quickly” [P0008]). The core of Joubert is described as a single part and is formed by additive manufacturing (P0048); this also reads on a monolithic structure as claimed.
The combination would be achievable by applying the teachings of Joubert to form the core to have internal porosity and then using it in the method. Either the core of Haas can be made using the techniques of Joubert or it can be replaced with a suitable core of Joubert.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art with a reasonable expectation of success before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the method such that the dissolvable insert comprises a porous core enclosed and sealed from a mold void by an outer surface of the dissolvable insert.
A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been specifically motivated to configure the core as suggested by Joubert in order to allow the core to be removed more quickly (Joubert at P0008); and to to achieve the simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results; use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way; and/or apply a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
The structure of the Joubert lattice is the same or substantially similar to the structure shown in the present application, e.g., compare figure 12 of Joubert to figure 12 of the present application. Thus, the Joubert lattice is believed to read on the claimed optimized for turbulence core.
Additionally, the purpose of structure of the core of Joubert is that “the core is removed more quickly” therefore it would be obvious to configure the core to dissolve more quickly (since the core is removed by dissolution) by optimizing the parameters that increase the rate of removing the core. Examiner takes official notice that increasing the turbulence between a solvent and solute (e.g., the soluble core) is known to increase the rate of dissolution. Therefore it would have also been obvious to optimize the core to dissolve faster by configuring it to have a turbulent fluid flow as claimed.
In reference to claim 2, the cited prior art discloses the method as in claim 1.
Joubert further discloses wherein at least partially dissolving the dissolvable
insert from within the article comprises flowing fluid through the porous core of the dissolvable insert (“the core may be removed by immersing the part comprising the core in a bath, for example a basic bath, to dissolve the core.” [P0002])
In reference to claim 3, the cited prior art discloses the method as in claim 1.
Haas further discloses wherein at least partially dissolving the dissolvable insert from within the article comprises flowing fluid through the porous core of the dissolvable insert (“water or steam may be flown through nozzle 38 into opening 40 of molded article 34 and soluble substance 16 may be washed out of molded article 34.” [P0074]).
In reference to claim 3-4, the cited prior art discloses the method as in claim 1.
The combination as applied reads on the claim limitations because
(a) Joubert disclose that the core can be formed to have a porous structure including, e.g., “the porous structure may be a lattice or honeycomb structure” & “honeycomb structure may comprise a set of adjacent channels” (P0009 & P0032 of Joubert; also see Fig 3-5); and,
(b) Haas further discloses wherein at least partially dissolving the dissolvable insert from within the article comprises flowing fluid through the porous core of the dissolvable insert (“water or steam may be flown through nozzle 38 into opening 40 of molded article 34 and soluble substance 16 may be washed out of molded article 34.” [P0074]).
Flowing a fluid through a core structure comprised of a lattice or honeycomb having channels designed to permit rapid dissolution of the core would result in flowing fluid through the through channels formed through the dissolvable insert as claimed.
In reference to claim 5, the cited prior art discloses the method as in claim 1.
Joubert forms the core by additive manufacturing (P0008).
In reference to claim 6, the cited prior art discloses the method as in claim 5.
Joubert further discloses forming the dissolvable insert comprises forming the porous core having a lattice structure to support an outer surface of the dissolvable insert, the outer surface forming internal features of the article (See Fig 3-5 and descriptions thereof, e.g., “Figure 5 shows a top view of the end 9 of the core 6 where the porosity opens out. The channels 10 extend parallel to the longitudinal direction L of the core 6. The core 6 has a wall 11 delimiting the porous internal structure.” [P0032])
In reference to claim 11, the cited prior art discloses the method as in claim 1.
Haas further discloses wherein filling the mold with material comprises injecting the material into the mold. (Fig 7 element 30; and “plastic melt may be injected (under high pressure) into the mold” [P0042])
In reference to claim 12, the cited prior art discloses the method as in claim 1.
Joubert further discloses wherein filling the mold with material comprises the formed article being a fluid handling component having a body and the at least one internal feature formed by the dissolvable insert defined within the body (“blade 20 is hollow and in this example has a cavity 21 and emerging cooling channels 22” [P0049]. Also see P0050 and Fig 9-10).
In reference to claim 13, the cited prior art discloses the method as in claim 1.
Haas further discloses wherein filling the mold with material comprises filling the mold with a thermoplastic polymer or a thermoset polymer. (Fig 7 element 30; and “plastic melt may be injected (under high pressure) into the mold” [P0042]).
In reference to claim 22, the cited prior art discloses the method as in claim 1.
Joubert discloses that the purpose of their porous core is to increase the dissolution rate of the core, therefore it would be obvious to optimize the core to dissolve faster including optimizing the shape of the core as claimed.
In reference to claim 23, the cited prior art discloses the method as in claim 1.
Joubert discloses that the purpose of their porous core is to reduce the time required for dissolution of the core (P0008) and that the core can be removed using a bath (P0002). Therefore, it would be obvious to optimize the core to dissolve within 1 hour as claimed.
Claims 7-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haas (US 20220111563 A1) in view of Joubert (FR 3104042 A1) in view of Sanderson (US 20130101823 A1)
In reference to claim 7-8, the cited prior art discloses the method as in claim 1.
The cited prior art does not specify the forming the dissolvable insert of a dissolvable resin including the dissolvable resin comprising polyacrylic acid (PAA), poly lactic acid (PLA), polyethylene glycol (PEG), acrylic blends, or combinations thereof.
In the same field of endeavor or reasonably pertinent to the particular problem faced by the inventor, soluble mold elements, Sanderson teaches forming the dissolvable insert via additive manufacturing techniques such that the dissolvable insert comprises forming the porous core having a lattice structure to support an outer surface of the dissolvable insert, the outer surface forming internal features of the article (“using a mold that has an insert that corresponds in shape to the network of the voids 14. FIG. 3 shows a unit cell of a mold insert 20 used” [P0046]. See Fig 13.
“mold insert 20 may be made …stereolithography” [P0049]
“mold insert 20 may be made of a material that can be dissolved” [P0047] and “water-soluble rapid prototyping materials, such as those describe in U.S. Pat. No. 6,070,107;” [P0047]. This is the Lombardi patent cited above.
water-soluble rapid prototyping materials encompass PEG, as evidenced by U.S. Pat. No. 6,070,107;” [P0047]. This is the Lombardi patent cited above. Lombardi references PEO. PEG and PEO are the same in the context of the present claims.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art with a reasonable expectation of success before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method by forming the dissolvable insert via additive manufacturing techniques such that the dissolvable insert comprises forming the porous core having a lattice structure to support an outer surface of the dissolvable insert, the outer surface forming internal features of the article; and is made of resin.
A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been specifically motivated to integrate the teaching of Sanderson in order to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results; achieve the simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results; use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way; apply a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results; and/or choose from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICHOLAS KRASNOW whose telephone number is (571)270-1154. The examiner can normally be reached M-R: 8am-5pm.
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, Xiao Zhao can be reached at 571-270-5343. 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.
/NICHOLAS KRASNOW/Examiner, Art Unit 1744
Prosecution Insights