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 .
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.
Claims 1 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mochizuki [JP1-229616, of record, previously cited] in view of Nagata [JP3074340, of record, previously cited].
Mochizuki discloses an apparatus capable of manufacturing a resin molding product comprising; a first mold mounting portion (4) being capable of mounting a first mold (1) thereon, the first mold where a first portion configuring the resin molding product (A1) is placed (Figure 1); a second mounting portion (5) being placed at a position facing the first mold mounting portion, and being capable of mounting a second mold (2) thereon, the second mold where a second portion configuring the resin molding product (A2) is placed (Figure 2); a heater (3) being movable to be inserted in a cavity formed by the first mold and the second mold, and partially melting and joining the first portion and the second portion (Figure 1). Mochizuki’s apparatus would be capable of working with a mold having a notch portion but does not explicitly disclose notch portion.
Nagata discloses a mold arrangement including molds (12 and 13) wherein both molds include a notch around the perimeter of the mold (Figure 8). The notch location around the perimeter of the mold would result in the heater and notch overlapping in a plan view when a heater is moved outside of the cavity.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the apparatus of Mochizuki by including a notch around the perimeter of the mold as taught by Nagata in order to decrease the size and weight of the mold and to reduce the surface of the mold that would potentially absorb heat from the heater. Modifying Mochizuki by providing a notch around the perimeter of the mold would result in the heater and notch overlapping in a plan view when a heater is moved outside of the cavity as the heater would pass over the notched perimeter as it is removed from between the molds.
With respect to claim 8, Mochizuki discloses mold mounting portions that are capable of being fixed and movably configured.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/24/205 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant asserts none of the applied references teaches or suggests the combination of features recited in Claim 1. Applicant asserts Nagata fails to disclose a heater that can be moved in and out of the cavity and cannot teach a heater and notch portion overlap in plan view when the heater moves to outside of the cavity. Applicant address Nagata individually and does not address the combined teachings of Nagata and Mochizuki outside of the conclusory statement that the combined teachings would fail to teach or suggest the features of claim 1.
It is noted claim 1 is directed toward an apparatus and not toward a method. The combination of Mochizuki and Nagata discloses all of the structure required by the claims. Mochizuki discloses a heater that is movable to be inserted into a cavity formed by the first and second mold, the heater is capable of being moved outside of the cavity. Mochizuki’s mold includes a perimeter and moving the heater outside of the cavity would require moving the heater though a position that overlaps the perimeter of the mold in a plan view. Nagata discloses a mold with a notch portion around the perimeter. Combining the teachings of Mochizuki and Nagata to include the notch portion around the perimeter of the mold of Mochizuki would result in the claimed structure.
Applicant asserts the combination relies upon impermissible hindsight. In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, motivations to reduce size and weight is knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill. Additionally, improving the efficiency of a heating process by reduce additional materials that do not need to be heated is knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 DANIEL MCNALLY whose telephone number is (571)272-2685. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
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, Michael Orlando can be reached at 571-270-5038. 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.
/DANIEL MCNALLY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1746
DPM
January 7, 2026