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 10/14/2025 responsive to the Office Action filed 07/30/2025 has been entered. Claims 1 and 3 have been amended. Claims 2 and 9 have been canceled. Claim 10 maintains withdrawn. Claims 1, 3-8 and 10 remain pending in this application.
Response to Arguments
Claim 3 has been amended to address the indefiniteness, thus the rejection of claim 3 under 112(b) has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see Amendment filed 10/14/2025 in pages 5-8, with respect to the rejection of claims 1-5 and 9 under 103 have been fully considered and due to the amendments, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Yang et al. (CN 106799798A).
Even though Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-5 and 9 under 103 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, one argument with respect to “variable-diameter shaft tube” is unpersuasive.
Applicant argues that “the transmission shaft in Li is not a drum-shaped shaft tube, as its diameter remains constant along its axial direction… This is clearly different from the variable-diameter, drum-shaped shaft tube defined in amended claim 1, in which the diameter varies along its axial direction.” (page 6)
Applicant’s arguments are found to be unpersuasive because:
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., the diameter varies along its axial direction) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Applicant’s arguments, see Amendment, filed 10/14/2025 in pages 8 and 9, with respect to the rejection of claims 6-8 under 103 have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that “the base plate 1 and top plate 7 disclosed in Yang are different from the left disk and right disk defined in the claims. As described in paragraph [0017] of the specification, both the base plate 1 and the top plate 7 in Yang are fastened to the outer mold 2 and inner mold 3 by means of bolts. Furthermore, the base plate 1 is a part of an annular mold cavity. In other words, the base plate 1, together with the outer mold 2 and the inner mold 3, defines a sealed annular cavity for forming a hyperboloid rotary body. The top plate 7 is provided with multiple bolt holes for bolted connection with the outer mold 2 and inner mold 3, thereby enhancing the overall structural stability of the mold. However, the left and right disks in the claims are respectively connected to the left and right extension sections at both ends of the forming section of the body through plug-in engagement, and are configured to drive the entire body to rotate during the winding and forming process of the variable-diameter shaft tube, thereby ensuring smooth and stable forming operation. The parts of the body are reliably positioned and joined to one another by their own structural features, without relying on the left and right disks to achieve or enhance structural stability.”
Applicant’s arguments are found to be unpersuasive because:
Yang teaches that a plurality of bolt holes are correspondingly provided on the chassis 1 and the top plate 7, the large ends of the outer mold 2 and the inner mold 3 are fixedly connected to the chassis by bolts, the small ends of the outer mold 2 and the inner mold 3 are fixed to each other by radial bolts and then connected to the top plate 7 by bolts, and in order to further ensure the sealing of the annular mold cavity, first sealing grooves 5 with built-in sealing strips are respectively provided on both sides of the limiting step 4 (Pa [0028]). Namely, not only fastening by bolts, Yang also teaches annular grooves (“first sealing grooves 5”) on the plate 1 in order to further ensure the sealing of the annular mold cavity. One would have found it obvious to modify Yang’s die by providing an annular limiting step on the top plate 7 and sealing grooves with built-in sealing strips respectively provided on both sides of the limiting step on the top plate 7 in order to further ensure the sealing of the annular mold cavity.
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 and 3-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang et al. (CN 106799798A_Machine Translation -of record).
With respect to claim 1, Yang teaches a forming mold for a drum-shaped shaft tube (“a split molding die for a composite material product of a hyperbolic body of revolution”, Pa [0028] and Figs. 2, 3), the drum-shaped shaft tube being a variable-diameter shaft tube made of a fiber composite material (“the three-dimensional structure of a hyperbolic body of revolution composite material product”, Pa [0024]; “glass fiber reinforced fabric”, Pa [0033]), wherein the forming mold comprises a body (“an inner mold 3”, Pa [0028]), wherein the body has a through hole that passes through the center of the body in an axial direction (Fig. 3), wherein the through hole is a variable-diameter through hole (“the inner mold 3 is truncated cone-shaped”, Pa [0028]), and a contour of the variable-diameter through hole is similar to a contour of an outer peripheral surface of the body (Fig. 3), wherein the body has a forming section (the outer side surface of the inner mold 3), and a contour of an outer peripheral surface of the forming section is the same as a contour of an inner peripheral surface of the drum-shaped shaft tube (Fig. 4); and the body is divided into a plurality of parts in a longitudinal direction, wherein the plurality of parts is combined in a circumferential direction to form the body (“The inner mold 3 is composed of a plurality of arc-shaped inner split molds 301”, Pa [0029]), a longitudinal maximum material size of each of the plurality of parts is less than a minimum diameter of the through hole (Fig. 3), two side edges of a cross section of at least one of the plurality of parts are deflected toward adjacent parts with respect to radial lines at which two end points of an outer arc of the cross section are located (Fig. 3), and a chord length of the outer arc of the cross section is less than a chord length of an inner arc of the cross section (Fig. 3).
It is noted that the limitation “the body is a rotating body” is an intended use since the inner mold 3 of Yang is capable of rotating. 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).
Yang further teaches that the split mold is easy to assemble and disassemble, which is conductive to demoulding (Pa [0019]), and after curing, the split mold and the product can be easily separated without causing damage to the product and the mold (Pa [0035]), and an included angle between the radial lines at which the two end points of the outer arc of the cross section of the at least one of the plurality of parts are located is α, and angles by which the two side edges of the cross section of the at least one of the plurality of parts are deflected toward the adjacent parts with respect to the radial lines at which the two end points of the outer arc of the cross section of the at least one of the plurality of parts are located are β, wherein α/2 = β (See the annotated Fig. 3 below), But does not explicitly teach α/2<β<(α/2)+3°.
PNG
media_image1.png
530
509
media_image1.png
Greyscale
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Yang’s inner split molds in order to simply assemble and disassemble the mold without causing damage to the product and the mold, since the claimed range and the prior art range are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. It has been held that a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed range and prior art range do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775,227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
With respect to claim 3, Yang as applied to claim 1 teaches that the plurality of parts comprises at least three parts (Fig. 3) are arranged, but does not explicitly teach that a number of the parts depends on required strength, rigidity, and economic efficiency of each part during demolding of the forming mold. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the number of Yang’s inner split molds within the scope of Yang’s invention in order to simply assemble and disassemble the mold without causing damage to the product and the mold, since the Courts have held that making known elements separable is within the skill of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Dulberg, 129 USPQ 348 (CCPA 1961) (see MPEP § 2144.04).
With respect to claim 4, Yang as applied to claim 1 does not explicitly teach that the cross sections of the plurality of parts have equal areas. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the number and shape of Yang’s inner split molds within the scope of Lin’s invention in order to simply assemble and disassemble the mold without causing damage to the product and the mold, since the Courts have held that making known elements separable is within the skill of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Dulberg, 129 USPQ 348 (CCPA 1961) (see MPEP § 2144.04), and the change in form or shape, without any new or unexpected results, is an obvious engineering design. See In re Dailey, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1976) (see MPEP § 2144.04).
With respect to claims 5-7, Yang as applied to claim 1 further teaches that the forming mold comprises a left disc and a right disc (“a bottom plate 1, a top plate 7”), and the bottom plate 1 and the top plate 7 are both annular, wherein an annular limiting step 4 is provided on the bottom plate 1 (Pa [0028]). Yang further teaches that a plurality of bolt holes are correspondingly provided on the chassis 1 and the top plate 7, the large ends of the outer mold 2 and the inner mold 3 are fixedly connected to the chassis by bolts, the small ends of the outer mold 2 and the inner mold 3 are fixed to each other by radial bolts and then connected to the top plate 7 by bolts, and in order to further ensure the sealing of the annular mold cavity, first sealing grooves 5 with built-in sealing strips are respectively provided on both sides of the limiting step 4 (Pa [0028]).
One would have found it obvious to modify Yang’s die by providing an annular limiting step on the top plate 7 and sealing grooves with built-in sealing strips respectively provided on both sides of the limiting step on the top plate 7 in order to further ensure the sealing of the annular mold cavity. In this modification, the sections of inner split molds which are inserted into and fitted with the sealing grooves on the bottom plate 1 and the top plate 7 correspond to a left extended section and a right extended section.
With respect to claim 8, Yang as applied in the claim 7 above does not explicitly teach that a length of the left extended section is L1+δ1, a length of the right extended section is L2+δ2, wherein δ1 and δ2 are both process gaps, wherein a depth of the left annular groove is L3, L3=L1, a depth of the right annular groove is L4, and L4=L2. However, one would have found it obvious to select the optimum length of each extended section by routine experimentation in order to further ensure the sealing of the annular mold cavity. It has been held that “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
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