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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 July 28, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Claims 1-20 are pending. Claims 1 and 7 have been amended. Claims 9-20 have been withdrawn. The July 28, 2026 affidavit persuasively argues for a narrower interpretation of heat pipe relative to the interpretation used for the May 4, 2026 Final Office Action. The previous rejections are withdrawn in favor of adding an additional reference to remedy the deficiency and teach a heat pipe as claimed.
Claim Interpretation
Claims 1-8 recite “An additively manufactured mold.” These claims are understood to recite a mold, manufactured by any method, provided that the mold exhibits the structure that would be conferred by additive manufacturing. While the disclosure envisions complicated porous structures that could only be readily produced by additive manufacturing, the claims are not so limiting. A far simpler mold with pores drilled by subtractive manufacturing could be additively manufactured and thus fall within the scope of the claims. Accordingly, while the art presented below teaches molds that have been additively manufactured, the claims are broader.
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.
Claim(s) 1-5 and 7-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Molitch-Hou (Next Chapter Manufacturing: Redesigning Injection Molding with 3D Printing by Michael Molitch-Hou, available @ <Next Chapter Manufacturing: Redesigning Injection Molding with 3D Printing - 3DPrint.com | Additive Manufacturing Business>) in view of Romanowski (WO-2020/201014).
Regarding claim 1, Molitch-Hou discloses an additively manufactured mold (mold), the additively manufactured mold comprising: a mold body defining a mold cavity (cavity of mold that plastic enters into, “Before you inject the plastic in, there is air inside of the mold so that, when you inject the plastic, that air has to go somewhere.“); and at least one porosity channel in fluid communication with the mold cavity (“steel molds they are printing so that the areas in contact with the liquid plastic are porous like a sponge”); and a thermal management element disposed within the mold body configured to enhance thermal control of the mold (conformal cooling with integrated cooling channels, p. 2, 4), wherein the at least one porosity channel has a sufficiently high porosity to vent entrapped gases from the mold cavity during the manufacture of an output part (“steel molds they are printing so that the areas in contact with the liquid plastic are porous like a sponge”).
Molitch-Hou teaches a mold substantially as claimed. Molitch-Hou does not disclose wherein the thermal management element is at least one of: a two-phase fluid loop, a pumped two-phase fluid loop, an integrated heat pipe, a vapor chamber, and an oscillating heat pipe.
However, in the same field of endeavor of additively manufacturing steel molds with integrated heat transfer channels (p. 1-3), Romanowski teaches wherein the thermal management element is at least one of: a two-phase fluid loop, a pumped two-phase fluid loop, an integrated heat pipe, a vapor chamber, and an oscillating heat pipe (heat pipe p. 3).It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the mold of Molitch-Hou to have a printed heat pipe because p. 2,4 of Molitch-Hou teaches having a cooling channel and p. 3 of Romanowski teaches a printed heat pipe in a steel mold for heat exchange.
Regarding claim 2, Molitch-Hou as modified teaches wherein the at least one porosity channel extends from the mold cavity to a channel outlet (air from within mold cavity passes through porous portions of the steel mold to an outlet (somewhere), “Before you inject the plastic in, there is air inside of the mold so that, when you inject the plastic, that air has to go somewhere.“; “steel molds they are printing so that the areas in contact with the liquid plastic are porous like a sponge”).
Regarding claim 3, Molitch-Hou as modified teaches wherein the mold body and the at least one porosity channel form a single additively manufactured part (steel mold including porous portions are additively manufactured together, “steel molds they are printing”).
Regarding claim 4, Molitch-Hou as modified teaches wherein the at least one porosity channel is a region of material with a sufficiently high porosity along a length to vent entrapped gases from the mold cavity to a channel outlet (“steel molds they are printing so that the areas in contact with the liquid plastic are porous like a sponge”).
Regarding claim 5, Molitch-Hou as modified teaches wherein the at least one porosity channel has a first porosity and the mold body has a region with a second porosity (density changed so that selected portions have a higher porosity, “Moreover, NXCMFG is working on new methods of design that actually change the density of the steel molds they are printing so that the areas in contact with the liquid plastic are porous like a sponge”), the first porosity different from the second porosity (changed density, “Moreover, NXCMFG is working on new methods of design that actually change the density of the steel molds they are printing so that the areas in contact with the liquid plastic are porous like a sponge”).
Regarding claim 7, Molitch-Hou as modified teaches wherein the at least one porosity channel comprises a first porosity channel (porosity closest to mold cavity) and a second porosity channel (porosity closest to outlet), and wherein the first and second porosity channel meet [up to] form a third porosity channel (porosity connecting first porosity to second porosity) such that the third porosity channel is in fluid communication with the first porosity channel, the second porosity channel, and an outlet (porosity channel from the cavity to an outlet, hence ability to vent the gas is present and constitutes first, second and third porosity channels as claimed).
Regarding claim 8, Molitch-Hou as modified teaches wherein the additively manufactured mold is made of steel (“steel molds they are printing so that the areas in contact with the liquid plastic are porous like a sponge”).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Molitch-Hou (Next Chapter Manufacturing: Redesigning Injection Molding with 3D Printing by Michael Molitch-Hou, available @ < https://3dprint.com/263562/next-chapter-manufacturing-redesigning-injection-molding-with-3d-printing/>) in view of Romanowski (WO-2020/201014) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Fattori (Back to Basics on Mold Venting (Part 2: Shape, Dimensions, Details), available @ < https://www.ptonline.com/articles/back-to-basics-on-mold-venting>).
Regarding claim 6, Molitch-Hou as modified teaches wherein the at least one porosity channel has a first porosity in a first portion adjacent to the mold cavity (“Moreover, NXCMFG is working on new methods of design that actually change the density of the steel molds they are printing so that the areas in contact with the liquid plastic are porous like a sponge”), and a second porosity in a second portion adjacent to a channel outlet (portion leading to an outlet, “somewhere”; “Before you inject the plastic in, there is air inside of the mold so that, when you inject the plastic, that air has to go somewhere.“).
Molitch-Hou teaches a mold substantially as claimed. Molitch-Hou does not disclose the relative porosity of the vent of portions closest to the mold cavity to portions closest to the outlet, and consequently does not disclose wherein the second porosity is greater than the first porosity.
However, in the same field of endeavor of designing molds for injection molding (title), Fattori teaches wherein the second porosity is greater than the first porosity (flow area in areas away from the cavity should be at least as large as areas bordering the mold cavity, with the given example of double, “The secondary relief channel must have at least an equal amount of cross-sectional flow area as all these vents combined. Let’s say the secondary relief channel is 3/8 in. wide. The minimum depth should therefore be 0.010 in.2 / 0.375 in. = 0.027 in. deep. However, I like to go 1.5 to 2 times this depth to guarantee there is no pressure drop caused by rough mill marks and 90° turns.”; Vent Nomenclature Fig. 1).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the mold of Molitch-Hou to have greater porosity at portions closest to the outlet than portions closest to the vent cavity because Fattori teaches that portions of a vent furthest from the mold cavity and closest to the outlet should have higher cross-sectional areas and Molitch-Hou teaches printing steel with porosity to achieve venting properties.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed July 28, 2026, with respect to the prior art rejection(s) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Romanowski (WO-2020/201014).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICHOLAS J CHIDIAC whose telephone number is (571)272-6131. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30 AM - 6:00 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, Sam Xiao Zhao can be reached at 571-270-5343. 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.
/NICHOLAS J CHIDIAC/ Examiner, Art Unit 1744
/EMMANUEL S LUK/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1744
Prosecution Insights