DETAILED ACTION
Possible Prior Art
Internet Archive was used to retrieve the attached copy of the Bioffex website available October 23, 2021 (outside all possible grace period exceptions under 35 U.S.C. 102) which is believed to be associated with the Applicant and is interpreted as an offer for sale (see “Contact your Lifoam Rep today for more information!” on the website and the instant Assignee, Lifoam Industries, LLC). If this product is associated with the Applicant, the particular product being offered for sale on the website and the steps/conditions used in manufacturing the product offered for sale constitute prior art with respect to the instant application even if they are not disclosed on the website. Since the USPTO has no way to ascertain this information, Applicant is invited to (i) clarify any association between Bioffex and the assignee of this application, and (ii) provide information about the manufacturing process for the product offered for sale on or before October 23, 2021 that shows any feature of the instant claims. The Examiner is available by telephone to discuss this issue.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 3, 5, 8, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
As to claim 3, “relative to a base foam color without the use of colorants” renders the claim indefinite because it uses an unknown contrast ratio scale and appears to make a comparison relative to a hypothetical component.
As to claim 5, “high heat capacity” is relative/subjective and no standard for “high” is provided in the specification.
As to claim 8, “or the like” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear what is encompassed by “or the like”.
As to claim 11, “high contrast” is relative/subjective no standard for “high” is provided in the specification.
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 1-15 and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nawaby (US 20120223459) in view of Mittag (US 20130084429).
As to claims 1, 2, 10, and 11, Nawaby teaches molding a polylactic foam article ([0016]-[0017]) and pressing a heated surface ([0019], “hot mold”) against the molded foam article for 1-5 seconds ([0020]).
Nawaby does not specifically teach that the hot mold produces something that can be considered a high-contrast “brand”.
Mittag teaches a shaped stamping press (Fig. 4, item 41) which is heated ([0102]) and pressed against a foam inherently for a period of time to produce a contour or decoration ([0120]) interpreted to produce a high-contrast brand.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to filing to incorporate the Mittag shaped stamping pressing step into Nawaby because Nawaby already teaches/suggests molding a foam using a mold (claim 14 of Nawaby) and Mittag provides a shaped mold for molding the surface of a foam within the scope of the Nawaby teaching/suggestion. A reasonable expectation of success would be evident to the ordinary artisan in light of the similarity in the mold and foam used in both references.
As to claim 3, the contrast ratio is undefined in the instant application. However, by providing a heated tool applied to a PLA foam for the same amount of time (see rejection of claim 1 above), one would have obviously arrived at the same contrast ratio. As to claims 4 and 15, while Nawaby is silent to graphite and other colorants which would provide a non-white color, Mittag teaches colorants such as dyes and pigments ([0064]), interpreted to be non-white. One would have been motivated to incorporate the Mittag other colorants into Nawaby in order to provide color to the Nawaby foam. There would be a reasonable expectation of success in light of the fact that both references provide a foam. As to claims 5-9, it is unclear what material Nawaby uses for the mold. However, Mittag teaches a metal die ([0106]) which is interpreted to have an embossed or debossed design (Fig. 4, item 41) comprising an image or image-like design ([0120]). As to claims 12 and 13, while Nawaby is silent to the claimed temperature, Mittag teaches pressing with a shaped stamping press heated to about 200 C (392 F) ([0105]). Additionally, Mittag teaches that the particular temperature selected for the forming tool is selected to be not so hot or held for too long such that the foam is degraded, and therefore represents a result effective variable. It would have been prima facie obvious to incorporate the Mittag temperatures into Nawaby in view of Nawaby’s teaching/suggestion to use a mold temperature of “at least about” 50 C ([0019]) and Mittag’s mold temperature consistent with this teaching/suggestion. As to claim 14, since the Nawaby foam contains minerals which are typically white such as talc, calcium carbonate, kaolin, titanium dioxide, and silica ([0028]), it would have been obvious to provide a white foam. As to claims 17 and 18, in one interpretation, Nawaby teaches producing a foam including a step of heating in an oven, and subsequent placement in a hot mold ([0018]-[0019]) interpreted to be immediately after producing the molded foam article. In a second interpretation, Nawaby teaches extruding a foam article ([0017]) separate from the hot mold pressing step ([0019]), and this interpretation cooling of the molded foam following extrusion ([0017]) would have been obvious. As to claim 19, Nawaby inherently provides a molded foam article with one or more faces which could be branded.
Claims 16 and 20-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nawaby (US 20120223459) in view of Mittag (US 20130084429), and further in view of Edgar (US 20080241477). Nawaby and Mittag teach the subject matter of claims 1 and 5 above under 35 U.S.C. 103.
As to claim 16, Nawaby and Mittag do not appear to specifically disclose the heating process (whether convective or conductive).
However, Edgar teaches fitting a die/tool in a heat press machine and that die assists in “conducting heat” to the material to be embossed. Therefore, Edgar teaches conductive heating of the surface.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate this heating into Nawaby as an obvious interchangeable heating process for heating an embossing/stamping tool.
As to claims 20 and 21, Nawaby is silent to a coated tool surface formed by CNC machining.
Edgar teaches a process for embossing flexible sheets comprising CNC machining a tool ([0017]) and coating with a mold release agent ([0019]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to filing to incorporate these features from Edgar into Nawaby because (a) CNC machining would have been an obvious interchangeable substitute for the Nawaby/Mittag molding tool fabrication process, and (b) one would have been motivated to provide a mold release agent to the Nawaby/Mittag molding tool in order to improve separation of the molding tool from the Nawaby foam.
As to claim 22, Nawaby and Mittag do not appear to specifically disclose the 10 psi pressure.
However, Edgar teaches that the pressure conditions are sufficient to emboss a design on a material, and that the pressure depends on various factors such as the material, design, and thickness of the flexible material ([0020]), making the pressure a result effective variable. Edgar also teaches a range below 150 psi ([0021]). One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to optimize the embossing pressure and arrive at the claimed 10 psi as a matter of routine optimization within the disclosed range (0-150 psi) of Edgar.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate this embossing pressure into the modified Nawaby process motivated by embossing a design on the Nawaby material under conditions appropriate for the material, design, and thickness of the material.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW J DANIELS whose telephone number is (313)446-4826. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:30-5:00 pm.
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 at 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.
/MATTHEW J DANIELS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1742