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 Amendment
The Amendments filed 09/17/2025 responsive to the Office Action filed 06/18/2025 has been entered. Claims 1, 2, 12 and 16 have been amended. Claim 20 has been canceled. Claims 14-19 maintain withdrawn. Claims 1-19 are pending in this application.
Response to Arguments
Claim 12 has been amended to address the informality, thus the objection of claim 12 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see Amendment, filed 09/17/2025 in pages 8 and 9, with respect to the rejection of claim 1 under 102 have been fully considered and the rejection has been withdrawn due to the amendments. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection under 103 is made in view of Bosch et al. (US 2012/0061873) further in view of Souders (US 5,393,474).
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.
Claims 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bosch et al. (US 2012/0061873) in view of Souders (US 5,393,474) (All of record).
With respect to claim 1, Bosch teaches a mold tool a thermoforming device for reshaping a sheet of material into at least one three-dimensional article (Fig. 3), the mold tool comprising:
a first tool part (“a first (upper) mould 5”) and a second tool part (“a second (lower) mould 6”) (Pa [0047]) that works together with the first tool part, wherein in a closed state of the mold tool the first tool part and the second tool part are moved toward one another, and in an open state of the mold tool, the first tool part and the second tool part are moved away from one another (“In FIG. 6A the heated plastic foil 23 is placed between mould halves 5,6. In FIG. 6B lower mould 6 has performed an upward stroke”, Pa [0050]; “After the pre-cutting the pre-stretcher will carry the material into the mould cavity.”, Pa [0051]; “After the product has been cut out, lower mould 6 moves downward and the product will then be carried out of lower mould 6 in order to be stacked or further processed.”, Pa [0053]);
a first mold half (“a pre-stretcher 9”) arranged in the first tool part and a second mold half (“a forming sleeve 11 and a forming base 12”) arranged in the second tool part (Pa [0047]), wherein the mold half and the second mold half are configured to reshape the sheet of material arranged between the first tool part and the second tool part into the at least one three-dimensional article when the first tool part and the second tool part are moved toward one another (“After the pre-cutting the pre-stretcher will carry the material into the mould cavity. An increased pressure is then applied so as to press the plastic against the wall and the bottom of the mould cavity. Because the wall and the bottom of the cavity are kept at relatively low temperature, the plastic will take on a fixed form.”, Pa [0051]); and
a cutting device comprising at least one cutting element (“a cutting sleeve 10”) being extended in a direction of the sheet of material arranged between the first tool part and the second tool part in order to cut the sheet of material before the sheet of material is deformed (“In FIG. 6C, lower mould 6 is moved still further upward so that foil 23 is pre-cut through the cutting line defined by cutting plate 7 and cutting sleeve 10.”, Pa [0050]).
Bosch teaches moving upward and downward the cutting sleeve 10 by moving the lower mould 6 (Pa [0050]-[0053]), but is silent to at least one actuating device coupled to the at least one cutting element, wherein the at least one actuating device extends the at least one cutting element in a direction of the sheet of material arranged between the first tool part and the second tool part.
In the same field of endeavor, a molding press, Souders teaches that the molding press 10 comprises an upper platen 22 that reciprocates on vertical guides through action of suitable hydraulic cylinders and controls, and an upper mold member 24 that has a profiled molding surface 26 is attached to the moveable upper platen 22 (co 3 li 46-48, 50-52).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Bosch with the teachings of Souders and provide the platen with Bosch’s lower mould in order to allow the lower mould to move upward and downward through action of suitable hydraulic cylinders and controls.
With respect to claim 2, the combination as applied to claim 1 above further teaches that the at least one actuating device (Souders’ “the platen”) retracts the at least one cutting element in the direction of the sheet of material when the mold tool is in the open state or in a partially open state (“After the product has been cut out, lower mould 6 moves downward and the product will then be carried out of lower mould 6”, Bosch, Pa [0053]).
With respect to claim 3, the combination as applied to claim 1 above further teaches that the at least one actuating device (Souders’ “the platen”) retracts the at least one cutting element after the sheet of material is cut (“After the product has been cut out, lower mould 6 moves downward”, Bosch, Pa [0053]).
With respect to claim 4, Bosch as applied to claim 1 above further teaches that the at least one cutting element (“the cutting sleeve 10”) is arranged in the mold tool (“Lower mould 6 is constructed from, among other parts, a cutting sleeve 10”, Pa [0047]) such that in the extended position, the at least one cutting element at least partially precuts or cuts the sheet of material on an outer edge of the at least one three-dimensional article that is to be molded or is already molded or close to the outer edge of the at least one three-dimensional article that is to be molded or is already molded (“In FIG. 6C lower mould 6 is moved still further upward so that foil 23 is pre-cut through the cutting line defined by cutting plate 7 and cutting sleeve 10.”, Pa [0050]; “In FIG. 6D lower mould 6 has performed another short upward stroke, wherein cutting sleeve 10 is carried further into cutting plate 7. Here the product is cut completely from foil 23.”, Pa [0052]).
With respect to claim 5, Bosch as applied to claim 1 above further teaches that the at least one cutting element (“the cutting sleeve 10”) is arranged in the second tool part (“a second (lower) mould 6”) (Pa [0047]).
With respect to claim 6, the combination as applied to claim 1 above further teaches that the at least one actuating device (Souders’ “the platen”) is arranged in the second tool part (Bosch’s “a second (lower) mould 6”).
With respect to claim 7, Bosch as applied to claim 1 above further teaches that the cutting device comprises at least one opposing cutting element (“a cutting plate 7”) that works together with the at least one cutting element (“In FIG. 6C lower mould 6 is moved still further upward so that foil 23 is pre-cut through the cutting line defined by cutting plate 7 and cutting sleeve 10.”, Pa [0050]).
With respect to claim 8, Bosch as applied to claim 7 above further teaches that the at least one opposing cutting element (“a cutting plate 7”) is arranged in the first tool part (“Upper mould 5 is constructed from, among other parts, a cutting plate 7”, Pa [0047]) opposite to the at least one cutting element (“cutting sleeve 10”) in an extending position (Fig. 6C).
With respect to claim 9, even though Bosch as applied to claim 1 above does not explicitly mention that the at least one cutting element comprises at least one blade, since the cutting sleeve 10 cuts the foil 23 through the cutting line defined by cutting plate 7 and cutting sleeve 10 while lower mould 6 is moved upward, one of ordinary skill in the art would have considered that the corner of the cutting sleeve 10 on the cutting line functions as a blade.
With respect to claim 10, Souders as applied in the combination regarding claim 1 above further teaches that the at least one actuating device (“platen”) comprises an extending and retracting mechanism driven hydraulically (“the molding press 10 comprises an upper platen 22 that reciprocates on vertical guides through action of suitable hydraulic cylinders and controls (co 3 li 46-48).
With respect to claim 11, Bosch as applied to claim 1 above further teaches at least one support mechanism that supports the at least one cutting element (See the annotated Fig. 3 below).
PNG
media_image1.png
439
780
media_image1.png
Greyscale
With respect to claim 12, Bosch as applied to claim 1 above further teaches at least one cutting line (“the cutting line” and “the auxiliary cutting line”) arranged in at least one of the first tool part and the second tool part (“defined by cutting plate 7 and cutting sleeve 10”) (Pa [0050]) for final-cutting the at least one three-dimensional article (“In FIG. 6D lower mould 6 has performed another short upward stroke, wherein cutting sleeve 10 is carried further into cutting plate 7. Here the product is cut completely from foil 23.”, Pa [0052]).
With respect to claim 13, it is noted that the limitation “the sheet of material comprises natural fibers” is an intended use since the mold tool taught by Souders is capable of re shaping the sheet of material comprising natural fibers, since it has been held that “[i]nclusion of material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims.” See In re Young, 75 F.2d *>996<, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935) (as restated in In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963)) (see MPEP § 2115).
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 YUNJU KIM whose telephone number is (571)270-1146. The examiner can normally be reached on 8:00-4:00 EST M-Th; Flexing Fri.
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, Christina Johnson can be reached on 571-272-1176. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/YUNJU KIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1742
Prosecution Insights