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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 filed on 11/18/2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Applicant filed a response, amended claim 1, cancelled claim 2, and added new claim 11 on 11/18/2025.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments are primarily drawn to the amended claims. The new rejection below addresses the amendments.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 5, 6, and 8-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sanderson (PG-PUB 2013/0285292).
Regarding claim 1, Sanderson teaches a molded body manufacturing method comprising:
irradiating at least a part of a mold with electromagnetic waves or setting the at least the part of the mold in an alternating electric field after a material is introduced into a cavity of the mold, while keeping an inside of the cavity at a lower pressure than an atmospheric pressure [0045]-[0046], [0051];
melting or curing the material in the cavity to form a molded body [0047];
keeping the inside of the cavity at the lower pressure than the atmospheric pressure until the molded body is in a cooled state [0048]-[0049]; and
naturally taking the molded body out of the inside of the cavity after the molded body is in the cooled state,
wherein in the mold:
a heating element, which generates heat by absorbing the electromagnetic waves or generates heat by being set in the alternating electric field, is provided outside the cavity (Figure 1, item 2a and 2b and [0035]-[0036], [0045]),
wherein the heating element covers an entirety of the cavity (Figure 1), the heating element has a vacuum hole to which a vacuum pump is connected, and the vacuum pump is configured to make an inside of the heating element to be in a state having a pressure value that is lower than the atmospheric pressure (Figure 1, item 12 and [0039], [0049]); and
a transmission amount suppressor, which suppresses an amount of
transmission of the electromagnetic waves or the alternating electric field to an to the
inside of the cavity, is provided in at least a part of a space between the heating
element and the cavity, or at least a part of the cavity comprises includes the
transmission amount suppressor (Figure 1 and 3, item 3a and 3b and [0040], [0050]),
the heating element generates the heat and the heat is transmitted to the material [0045]-[0046], whereby molding is performed.
Regarding claim 3, Sanderson teaches the process as applied to claim 1, wherein the transmission amount suppressor blocks out the transmission of the electromagnetic waves or the alternating electric field to the inside of the cavity (Figure 1 and 3, item 3a and 3b and [0040], [0050]).
Regarding claim 5, Sanderson teaches the process as applied to claim 1, wherein the material contains, as a polymer resin matrix (i.e., thermoplastic or thermosetting plastic) [0034].
Regarding claim 6, Sanderson teaches the process as applied to claim 1, wherein the material contains a fiber material [0034].
Regarding claim 8, Sanderson teaches the process as applied to claim 1, wherein the transmission amount suppressor contains metal (e.g., copper and nickel) and/or non-mental (e.g., polyester) [0020].
Regarding claim 9, Sanderson teaches the process as applied to claim 8, wherein the transmission amount suppressor contains copper [0020].
Regarding claim 10, Sanderson teaches the process as applied to claim 1, wherein the frequency of the waves are 500 Mhz to 30 Ghz [0026]-[0028], and therefore the wavelengths of the waves overlap with a range of 0.06 meter to 0.1 meter.
Sanderson anticipates the claimed range, as the prior art discloses a range within the claimed range and an embodiment using a wavelength about 0.115 meters [0043].
Regarding claim 11, Sanderson teaches the process as applied to claim 1, wherein the transmission amount compressor covers an entirety of the cavity (Figure 1, item 3a and 3b), and the heating element covers an entirety of the transmission amount compressor (Figure 1, item 2a and 2b).
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.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sanderson (PG-PUB 2013/0285292), as applied to claim 1, in further view of Kurihara (PG-PUB 2014/0225314).
Regarding claim 7, Sanderson teaches the process as applied to claim 1, wherein the heating element contains a ceramic material and conductive filler [0036].
Sanderson does not teach the heating element contains silicone rubber and/or fluororubber, and further contains, as a dielectric property-imparting substance, at least one selected from the group consisting of silicone carbide, ferrite, barium titanate, carbon black, and graphite in an amount of 5 to 90 vol %.
In the same field of endeavor pertaining to microwave-based heating and molding, Kurihara teaches a molding process utilizing an electromagnetic wave irradiation apparatus (Figure 2 and 4), wherein the mold comprises a surface layer having the capability to absorb specific electromagnetic waves [0015], [0037]. Kurihara teaches that the layer absorbs specific electromagnetic waves such that the thermoplastic resin in the cavity can be heated and melted by heat conduction [0059]-[0062]. Kurihara teaches the surface layer can be formed by adding a dielectric property-imparting substance for imparting dielectric properties to rubber, resin, or ceramics. Kurihara teaches the surface layer comprises fluororubber or silicone rubber and 5 to 90 vol% of dielectric property-imparting substance, such as silicon carbide, ferrite, barium titanate, carbon black and graphite (Claim 4 and [0116]-[0121]).
It would have been obvious at the time of the effective filing at the time of the invention to modify the process of Sanderson with the known suitable microwave absorbance composition of Kurihara for the heating elements of Sanderson, for use in the same way, to yield the predictable result of providing an element that have high microwave absorbance such that the molding material may be heated by conduction as desired by Sanderson.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 4 is 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.
Regarding claim 4, Sanderson teaches the process as applied to claim 1, wherein the cavity includes the transmission amount suppressor (Figure 1). Sanderson teaches the transmission amount suppressor 3a,3b also engage each other round the periphery of the component so as to shield the minor side faces of the component and thus fully surround it [0050].
There would be no motivation to modify the process of Sanderson such that at least parts of the outer surfaces of the cavity are in contact with inner surfaces of the heating element (Figure 1). Therefore, the combination of limitations of claim 4 would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HANA C PAGE whose telephone number is (571)272-1578. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9:00-5:30.
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, Phillip Tucker can be reached at 5712721095. 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.
/HANA C PAGE/Examiner, Art Unit 1745