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 05/06/2026 responsive to the Office Action filed 11/06/2025 has been entered. Drawing, Specification and Claims 1, 5, 7, 8, 11 have been amended. Claims 6 and 10 have been canceled. New claims 23-25 have been added. Claims 15-22 maintain withdrawn. Claims 1-5, 7-9 and 11-25 are pending in this application.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS)s submitted on 12/22/2025 and 05/13/2026 have been considered by the examiner.
Response to Arguments
Claim 6 has been canceled, thus the objection of claim 6 has been moot.
Claim 7 has been amended to address the informality, thus the objection of claim 7 has been withdrawn.
Claims 1 and 5-8 have been amended to address the indefiniteness, thus the rejection of claims 1-14 under 112(b) has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments, filed 05/06/2026, with respect to the rejection of claim 1 under 102 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 25 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, Applicant has been advised to replace “liquid batter” in line 4 to -- the liquid batter --; and
In claim 25, Applicant has been advised to replace “0,07 and 0,7” in lines 4-5 to – 0.07 and 0.7 --.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-5, 9, 11-14 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Lin et al. (US 2019/0351596).
With respect to claim 1, Lin teaches a mold (“a molding device”, Pa [0019]) comprising:
at least one mold cavity (“a cavity 800”) defined by at least a mold wall (“The second mold 500 is operable to be connected detachably to the first mold 100 to define cooperatively a cavity 800.”, Pa [0027]), wherein the mold is a baking mold provided with at least one heating element (“the first connecting tube 322, the second connecting tubes 722 and the third connecting tubes 723”, Pa [0036]) for heating the mold cavity and liquid batter inserted into said mold cavity for heating liquid batter inside the mold cavity to a baking temperature for the liquid batter (“a molding device of the present disclosure is adapted for molding a supercritical foaming material (not shown) into a foamed shoe element 9.”, Pa [0019]; “the liquid supplying device is used to supply hot water into the first connecting tube 322, the second connecting tubes 722 and the third connecting tubes 723 to heat up the first inner mold 3, the second inner mold 7 and the cavity 800.”, Pa [0036]), wherein at least one part of said wall is a porous part (“a first porous layer 32”), wherein the at least one porous part is formed by or comprises a porous insert inserted into an opening extending one of into and through said wall (“The first inner mold 3 includes a first porous layer 32… A periphery of the first porous layer 32 is connected to the first solid layer 31 such that the first solid layer 31 and the first porous layer 32 cooperatively define a first hollow space 34 therebetween.”, Pa [0021]; “The first mold 100 further has a first gas passage 35 that extends from the first porous layer 32 in a direction away from the first inner mold 3”, Pa [0022]), wherein the at least one porous insert (“a first porous layer 32”) forms a first vent for the mold cavity, wherein at least one further vent (“a first gas passage 35”) is provided for the mold cavity (“the gas valve is opened to discharge the carbon dioxide in the cavity 800 through the first and second gas passages 35, 75, allowing the supercritical foaming material to start foaming to be molded into the foamed shoe element 9. It is worth mentioning that the first and second porous layers 32, 72 provide a non-directional discharge of the carbon dioxide from the cavity 800, thereby achieving a uniform discharge of the carbon dioxide.”, Pa [0040]).
With respect to claim 2, Lin as applied to claim 1 above further teaches that the at least one porous insert is or comprises a porous body (“The first porous layer 32 further includes a first porous main body 321”, Pa [0023]).
With respect to claim 3, Lin as applied to claim 2 above further teaches that the porous body is made of metal (“steel”, Pa [0021]).
With respect to claim 4, Lin as applied to claim 2 above further teaches that the porous body is comprised in a sleeve (“a first solid layer 31”, “A periphery of the first porous layer 32 is connected to the first solid layer 31 such that the first solid layer 31 and the first porous layer 32 cooperatively define a first hollow space 34 therebetween.”, Pa [0021]).
With respect to claim 5, Lin as applied to claim 1 above further teaches that a series of porous inserts is provided in said wall (“The first inner mold 3 includes a first porous layer 32”, Pa [0021]; “The second inner mold 7 includes a second porous layer 72”, Pa [0028]).
With respect to claim 9, Lin as applied to claim 1 above further teaches that the mold cavity has a cavity surface and each porous insert has a porous surface in the cavity surface, facing the mold cavity, wherein the porous surface of the one porous insert (“a first porous layer 32”) has a surface area which is smaller than half of a surface area defined by the cavity surface (Figs. 3 and 8).
With respect to claim 11, Lin as applied to claim 1 above further teaches that the supercritical foaming material pre-mixed with supercritical carbon dioxide is injected into the cavity 800 through the material passage 4 (Pa [0038]), but is silent to an injector for injecting material into the mold cavity.
It is noted that the limitation “connected to an injector for injecting…” is an intended use since the mold of Lin can be used with an injector. The Courts have held that the manner of operating an apparatus does not differentiate an apparatus claim from the prior art, if the prior art apparatus teaches all of the structural limitations of the claim. See Ex Parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (BPAI 1987).
With respect to claim 12, Lin as applied to claim 1 above further teaches that the first gas passage 35 may be engaged into a gas supplying device (not shown) through a gas valve (not shown), which regulates the flow rate of the gas supplied into the first gas passage 35 (Pa [0026]), and after the supercritical foaming material is injected into the cavity 800, the gas valve is opened to discharge the carbon dioxide in the cavity 800 through the first and second gas passages 35, 75, allowing the supercritical foaming material to start foaming to be molded into the foamed shoe element 9 (Pa [0040]), but is silent to a pump connected to the at least one porous insert.
It is noted that the limitation “a pump is connected to…” is an intended use since the mold of Lin can be used with a pump. The Courts have held that the manner of operating an apparatus does not differentiate an apparatus claim from the prior art, if the prior art apparatus teaches all of the structural limitations of the claim. See Ex Parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (BPAI 1987).
With respect to claim 13, Lin as applied to claim 1 above further teaches that the at least one porous insert is designed for at least keeping batter inside the at least one mold cavity and removing vapor generated from the batter from the at least one mold cavity (“The porous structure of the first and second porous layers 32, 72 allows a uniform passage of gas therethrough.”, Pa [0038]; “the porosity of the first and second porous layers 32, 72 may be controlled during three dimensional printing to ensure that the supercritical foaming material does not enter the pores of the first and second porous layers 32, 72 during injection.”, Pa [0039]).
.
With respect to claim 14, Lin as applied to claim 1 above further teaches that the first inner mold 3 is made by a three dimensional printing technique from steel powder to be connected to a bottom side of the first base plate 2, and is received in the first groove 121 (Pa [0021]).
It is noted that the limitation “the at least one porous insert is removably mounted in said mold wall, such that it can be cleaned outside the mold” is an intended use since the mold of Lin is capable of performing the claimed operation. The Courts have held that the manner of operating an apparatus does not differentiate an apparatus claim from the prior art, if the prior art apparatus teaches all of the structural limitations of the claim. See Ex Parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (BPAI 1987).
With respect to claim 23, Lin as applied to claim 12 above further teaches that the first gas passage 35 may be engaged into a gas supplying device (not shown) through a gas valve (not shown), which regulates the flow rate of the gas supplied into the first gas passage 35 (Pa [0026]), after the supercritical foaming material is injected into the cavity 800, the gas valve is opened to discharge the carbon dioxide in the cavity 800 through the first and second gas passages 35, 75, allowing the supercritical foaming material to start foaming to be molded into the foamed shoe element 9 (Pa [0040]), and cooling air may be injected to the first and second inner molds 3, 7 through the first and second gas passages 35, 75 to reduce the time necessary for cooling the foamed shoe element 9 (Pa [0042]), but is silent to the pump arranged for suction and pressurizing.
It is noted that the limitation “the pump is arranged for suction and pressurizing” is an intended use since the mold of Lin can be used with the pump arranged for suction and pressurizing. The Courts have held that the manner of operating an apparatus does not differentiate an apparatus claim from the prior art, if the prior art apparatus teaches all of the structural limitations of the claim. See Ex Parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (BPAI 1987).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
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.
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 24 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Lin et al. (US 2019/0351596).
With respect to claim 24, Lin teaches a baking mold for baking products from a liquid batter (“a molding device”, Pa [0019]) comprising:
a mold including a mold cavity (“The second mold 500 is operable to be connected detachably to the first mold 100 to define cooperatively a cavity 800.”, Pa [0027]);
at least one heating element (“the first connecting tube 322, the second connecting tubes 722 and the third connecting tubes 723”, Pa [0036]) for heating the mold cavity and material inserted into said mold cavity (“a molding device of the present disclosure is adapted for molding a supercritical foaming material (not shown) into a foamed shoe element 9.”, Pa [0019]; “the liquid supplying device is used to supply hot water into the first connecting tube 322, the second connecting tubes 722 and the third connecting tubes 723 to heat up the first inner mold 3, the second inner mold 7 and the cavity 800.”, Pa [0036]), wherein the at least one mold cavity is defined by at least a mold wall (“The second mold 500 is operable to be connected detachably to the first mold 100 to define cooperatively a cavity 800.”, Pa [0027]), wherein at least one part of said wall is a porous part (“a first porous layer 32”), wherein the at least one porous part is formed by or comprises a porous insert inserted into an opening extending into or through said wall (“The first inner mold 3 includes a first porous layer 32… A periphery of the first porous layer 32 is connected to the first solid layer 31 such that the first solid layer 31 and the first porous layer 32 cooperatively define a first hollow space 34 therebetween.”, Pa [0021]; “The first mold 100 further has a first gas passage 35 that extends from the first porous layer 32 in a direction away from the first inner mold 3”, Pa [0022]), wherein the at least one porous insert is designed for at least keeping batter inside the at least one mold cavity and removing vapor generated from the batter from the at least one mold cavity (“The porous structure of the first and second porous layers 32, 72 allows a uniform passage of gas therethrough.”, Pa [0038]; “the porosity of the first and second porous layers 32, 72 may be controlled during three dimensional printing to ensure that the supercritical foaming material does not enter the pores of the first and second porous layers 32, 72 during injection.”, Pa [0039]).
Lin further teaches that the supercritical foaming material pre-mixed with supercritical carbon dioxide is injected into the cavity 800 through the material passage 4 (Pa [0038]), thus Lin implies an injector operably connected to the mold cavity for injecting the supercritical foaming material pre-mixed with supercritical carbon dioxide into the mold cavity. Alternatively, one would have found it obvious to provide an injector with Lin’s molding device in order to inject the supercritical foaming material pre-mixed with supercritical carbon dioxide into the cavity 800 through the material passage 4.
Lin further teaches that the first gas passage 35 may be engaged into a gas supplying device (not shown) through a gas valve (not shown), which regulates the flow rate of the gas supplied into the first gas passage 35 (Pa [0026]), after the supercritical foaming material is injected into the cavity 800, the gas valve is opened to discharge the carbon dioxide in the cavity 800 through the first and second gas passages 35, 75, allowing the supercritical foaming material to start foaming to be molded into the foamed shoe element 9 (Pa [0040]), and cooling air may be injected to the first and second inner molds 3, 7 through the first and second gas passages 35, 75 to reduce the time necessary for cooling the foamed shoe element 9 (Pa [0042]), but is silent to a pump connected to the at least one porous insert, wherein the pump is designed for providing suction through the at least one porous insert when the mold is closed and overpressure when the mold is open for expelling a product from the mold cavity.
It is noted that the limitation “a pump is connected to…” is an intended use since the mold of Lin can be used with a pump for the claimed operation. The Courts have held that the manner of operating an apparatus does not differentiate an apparatus claim from the prior art, if the prior art apparatus teaches all of the structural limitations of the claim. See Ex Parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (BPAI 1987).
With respect to claim 25, Lin as applied to claim 24 above further teaches that the porous inserts have a combined surface area facing the at least one mold cavity (“The first porous layer 32 includes a first molding surface 33”, Pa [0022]; “The second porous layer 72 includes a second molding surface 73”, Pa [0029]), further comprising a product formed inside the at least one mold cavity which has a dry weight (“a foamed shoe element 9”, Pa [0019]), but does not explicitly teach that the ratio of the combined surface area for the or each mold cavity and the dry weight of the product formed therein is between 0.07 and 0.7 cm2/gram.
It is noted that the limitation “the ratio of the combined surface area for the or each mold cavity and the dry weight of the product formed therein …” is an intended use since the mold of Lin is capable of forming the product having the claim ratio. The Courts have held that the manner of operating an apparatus does not differentiate an apparatus claim from the prior art, if the prior art apparatus teaches all of the structural limitations of the claim. See Ex Parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (BPAI 1987). The Courts have held that apparatus claims must be structurally distinguishable from the prior art in terms of structure, not function. See In re Danley, 120 USPQ 528, 531 (CCPA 1959); and Hewlett-Packard Co. V. Bausch and Lomb, Inc., 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (see MPEP §§ 2114 and 2173.05(g)).
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.
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 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin et al. (US 2019/0351596) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Matsumoto et al. (US 5,730,926-of record).
With respect to claim 7, Lin as applied to claim 1 above further teaches that the first inner mold 3 is made by a three dimensional printing technique from steel powder (Pa [0021]), but does not explicitly teach that the at least one porous insert is made using sintered metal or ceramics.
In the same field of endeavor, injection molding, Matsumoto teaches that the upper open end portion of vertical non-resin fluid channel 12a has metallic porous material 14 fittedly inserted therein, it is required that metallic porous material 14 does not permit the molten resin to intrude thereinto, but permits the pressurized non-resin fluid to flow smoothly therethrough, and metallic porous material 14 is advantageously made of, for example, sintered granular stainless steel (co 10 li 58-65).
It has been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to modify Lin with the teachings of Matsumoto to form the porous layer using sintered granular stainless steel in order to permit gas to flow through the porous structure but not to permit the material to intrude thereinto.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin et al. (US 2019/0351596) as applied to claim 1 above.
With respect to claim 8, Lin as applied to claim 1 above further teaches that the first porous layer 32 has a porosity ranging from 0% to 50% (Pa [0021]). In the case where claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. (See MPEP 2144.05 (I)).
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 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 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.
/YUNJU KIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1742
Prosecution Insights