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 .
Claims 1-20 are pending.
This application is a continuation of application 17/241770 (now US Pat 11745394), which is further a divisional of 15/664547 (now US Pat 11020880).
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) 1-3, 6-7, 10-14, 17, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ATTAR (US 7179406 B1) in view of VON HOLDT (US 4856977 A).
Re: 1, ATTAR teaches of a mold comprising:
a first mold portion (5a);
a second mold portion (5b) secured against the first mold portion along a draw axis to form at least one mold cavity, the second mold portion including an internal surface oriented at an oblique angle relative to the draw axis (see Figs. 1, 2, 2B, 5) ; and
a projection (16, 17) extending from the internal surface along a projection axis parallel to the draw axis, the projection being tapered (see Figs. 1, 2, 2b, 5).
ATTAR does not teach of the projection tapering being “in a direction perpendicular to the projection axis.”
In this regards, the concept of projections that tapered in the directions other than the projection axis is noted in the molding arts. Wherein, the ATTAR reference already teaches various shapes of the projection, see Figs. 1, 2, 2b, 5. Here, these are seen as change in shape of the of the elements to the desired directions and further such, change in shape of projections in molds can be seen in the VON HOLDT reference. See here, the features of the projections, see Fig. 7-8, see element 60 that are trapezoidal in shape and includes tapering in directions other than the projection axis of the mold 12d, 14d. The
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the ATTAR reference with the tapered projection as taught by VON HOLDT regarding the projection shape on a mold as a change in shape of the projections, see MPEP 2144.04 (IV) (B).
Re: 2 (upon 1), wherein the projection forms an elongated profile with a first end proximate to the internal surface, a second end opposite the first end, and a pair of side surfaces extending between the first end and the second end, and wherein the side surfaces are tapered such that a width of the projection proximate to the first end is larger than a width of the projection proximate to the second end.
See teaching of the surfaces of the projection of ATTAR and further of the VON HOLDT reference, wherein the combination of the references would teach of the claimed ends of the projection particularly regarding the trapezoidal shape of the projections.
Re: 3 (upon 1), wherein the projection axis is oriented parallel to the draw axis. See ATTAR, Figs. 1, 2, 5, projections 16, 17.
Re: 6 (upon 1), wherein the internal surface is located within an orifice of the second mold portion, and wherein the projection includes a trapezoidal shape. See teaching of the trapezoidal shape in ATTAR and the VON HOLDT reference.
Re: 7 (upon 1), wherein the first mold portion includes an inner surface and at least one protrusion extending from the inner surface, wherein the second mold portion includes an orifice configured to receive the at least one protrusion, and wherein the internal surface is disposed within the orifice. See the teaching of the ATTAR reference that includes the orifice which accommodates the projections, see Figure 5. Similarly, see also VON HOLDT of the projection 61 and corresponding orifice 62.
Re: 10 (upon 1), wherein the projection includes a lower surface oriented substantially perpendicular to the projection axis, and wherein a first end of the lower surface proximate to the internal surface includes a first diameter and a second end of the lower surface opposite the first end includes a second diameter smaller than the first diameter. See teaching of the combined ATTAR and VON HOLDT reference, regarding the projections and sizes which includes the changes in the diameter sizes and would encompass the claimed structure features.
Re: 11, the claim is similar to claim 1, wherein, instead of perpendicular, angle is oblique. This concept can be seen with the ATTAR teaching of the angled arrangement from which projections can further be arranged from the internal surface.
Re: 12 (upon 11), wherein the direction oblique to the internal surface is perpendicular to the projection axis. This is a feature regarding the perpendicular feature of claim 1 above.
Re: 13 (upon 11), see claimed feature in claim 2 above.
Re: 14 (upon 11), see claim 3 above.
Re: 17 (upon 11), see claim 7 above.
Re: 20 (upon 11), see claim 10 above.
Claim(s) 4-5, 8-9, 15-16, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ATTAR in view of VON HOLDT as applied to claim1 and 11 above, and further in view of WIEDNER (US 3202033).
Re: 4 (upon 1), further comprising a lip positioned between the internal surface and at least a portion of the projection.
The feature regarding a lip is not specifically taught in the ATTAR and VON HOLDT reference.
However, in this case, as seen in WIEDNER teaching regarding molded products, the projection (see core pin 23') wherein the formed guide hole that would allow for a screw 10, see the formed washer 14, the washer formed via molding, see Figs. 17 and 18. The formed hole 16a-1 and 16a-5, wherein the hole can be cylindrical or slightly tapered, whichever is preferred, to provide frictional grip, see Col. 7, lines 6-16. The formation of the mold features in regards to the structure of the mold that allows for accommodating the threaded fasteners particularly with tapered regions (wherein one end is narrower) as it allows for gripping with the threaded fastener.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the mold features of the formed shaping features Attar in view of VON HOLDT with the mold features that accommodate for threaded fasteners as taught by WIEDNER including a tapered region as it allows for gripping with threaded fasteners with the formed molded product.
Re: 5, 8-9, 15-16, and 18, these are similar issues, wherein, regarding the lip structure teaching. Here, as seen in the teaching of the WIEDNER reference that when combined with the modified ATTAR reference would encompass the claimed features.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-19 of U.S. Patent No. 11745394.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claimed features of the instant application regarding the first and second mold, internal surface, and projections are encompassed by the claimed structure in Patent No. 11745394.
Re: claim 1, the claimed structure of the 18/351,741 application corresponds to the claimed structure of the US Patent No. 11,745,394, including the first and second mold portions, the cavity, draw axis, the projection, the difference being the addition of the tapered projection. This corresponds to the teaching of claim 2 of the ‘394 patent.
Re: claim 2, the claimed structure includes of the projection with side surfaces, and of the tapered width, this corresponds to the teaching of claim 2 of the ‘394 patent.
Re: claim 3, would correspond to the teaching of claim 1 of the ‘394 patent.
Re: claim 4, corresponds to the teaching of claim 6 of the ‘394 patent.
Re: claim 5, corresponds to the teaching of claim 7 of ‘394 patent.
Re: claim 6, corresponds to the teaching of claim 10 of ‘394 patent.
Re: claim 7, corresponds to claim 11 of ‘394 patent.
Re: claim 8, corresponds to claim 12 of ‘394 patent.
Re: claim 9 and 10, corresponds to claim 9 of ‘394 patent, with the difference being of the projection feature, wherein, it would have been obvious to have modified with a change in shape modification.
Re: claim 11, corresponds to claim 15 of ‘394 patent.
Re: claim 12, corresponds to claim 16 of ‘394 patent.
Re: claim 13, corresponds to claim 15 of ‘394 patent., except of the tapered teaching which is seen as a change in shape of the shaping surface of the projection.
Re: claim 14, corresponds to claim 19 of ‘394 patent.
Re: claim 15, corresponds to claim 17 of ‘394 patent.
Re: claims 16-17 and 19, corresponds to claim 18 of ‘394 patent, with the difference being of the projection feature, wherein, it would have been obvious to have modified with a change in shape modification.
Re: claim 18, corresponds to claim 17 of ‘394 patent.
Re: claim 20, corresponds to claim 15 of ‘394 patent, wherein, the diameters of the ends are seen as a change in shape of the projection.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EMMANUEL S LUK whose telephone number is (571)272-1134. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9 to 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, Xiao S 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.
/EMMANUEL S LUK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1744