DETAILED ACTION
The papers submitted on 10 March 2026, amending claim 13, 19, 21, 23, 30, 32, adding claims 33, and canceling claims 18, 24, 28, and 31, are acknowledged.
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.
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 13-17, 25-27, 29 and 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bridges et al. (US 3,225,126) in view of Lang et al. (US 10,836,083 B2).
Regarding claim 13, Bridges discloses a method for producing a molded part from a foamed plastic in a mold cavity 200 which is delimited by walls 141 and 180 of an at least two-part, openable and closable molding tool 11 and 13, (title/abstract; FIG. 1, 2A, 4, 10) comprising the steps of:
a. closing the molding tool to prepare the mold cavity (10:42+);
b. pouring of a particulate granulate of the plastic into the mold cavity (11:8+);
c. heating the granulate through the introduction of cooking steam into the filled mold cavity at such a temperature and steam pressure that the granulate is melted to form a molded part (1:69-2:12, 11:23+);
d. cooling the molded part in the mold cavity (11:33+); and
e. opening the molding tool and removing the molded part (10:14+),
wherein the cooking steam that is introduced into the mold cavity is conveyed through steam chambers which are positioned on a side of the walls of the molding tool opposite from the mold cavity and communicate with the mold cavity openings that pass through the walls (FIG. 4; 6:59+),
wherein the walls are produced with a cavity extending inside the walls, the openings pass through the cavity as tubular sections delimited from the cavity between surfaces of the walls, connecting the walls about the cavity, and the walls and the openings are integrally formed from a metallic material with the cavity formed therebetween and the openings passing therethrough (FIG. 4; 6:59+),
wherein before and/or during the closing of the molding tool, a temperature control medium inside the walls of the molding tool is guided in a cavity, which does not communicate with the steam chambers and mold cavity, in order to preheat the walls, and the walls of the molding tool are preheated to a temperature that is suitable for melting the granulate to form the molded part (FIG. 4; 2:56+, 6:59+), and
after the heating in step c), the filled mold cavity is acted on with a negative pressure which would necessarily result in the removal of any residual steam or condensate from the mold cavity (11:53+).
Bridges does not appear to expressly disclose an additively manufactured mold tool.
However, Lang discloses similar molds for use in steam molding (title/abstract, FIG. 1-2) in which the complex structures for separating the steam and temperature control chambers are created by a metal selective laser sintering additive manufacturing process (5:42+).
At the time of invention, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the process of Bridges to include the additive manufacture of Lang, because such a means of forming the mold is known in the art and could be used with expected results.
Regarding claim 14, Bridges discloses preheating to 265° F. (130° C.) (12:37-38) which falls within the claimed range (MPEP § 2131.03).
Regarding claim 15 and 25, Bridges discloses steam or water as the temperature control medium (2:38+).
Regarding claim 16 and 26, Bridges discloses guidance of the temperature control medium through the cavity is also maintained during the pouring-in of the granulate in step b). (11:23+).
Regarding claim 17 and 27, Bridges discloses temperature control medium is guided through the cavity in a closed circuit (FIG. 4; 6:59+).
Regarding claim 29, Bridges discloses wherein to cool the molded part in the mold cavity of the molding tool in step d), a cooling medium is conveyed through the cavity inside the walls of the molding tool which cavity does not communicate with the steam chambers in order to cool the walls to a demolding temperature (FIG. 4; 6:59+, 11:33+).
Regarding claim 33, Lang discloses each of the openings comprises a funnel or conical shape having a wider opening end disposed toward the mold cavity (FIG. 2).
Claims 19-22, and 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bridges et al. (US 3,225,126) in view of Lang et al. (US 10,836,083 B2) as applied to claim 13 above, further in view of Hahn et al. (EP 0 259 597 A2).
Regarding claim 19, Bridges does not appear to expressly disclose that the negative pressure is applied at a temperature of the walls of greater than 70° C. for a predetermined time interval such that the melted granulate in the mold cavity is stabilized .
However, Hahn discloses a similar steam molding process (title/abstract) which includes vacuum cooling by removing the saturated steam at temperatures of 115° C. or more (3:8+).
At the time of invention, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the process of Bridges to include the vacuum cooling of Hahn, because such cooling means is conventional in the art and could be performed with expected results.
Regarding claim 20, Bridges discloses to cool the molded part in the mold cavity of the molding tool in step d), a cooling medium is conveyed through the cavity inside the walls of the molding tool which cavity does not communicate with the steam chambers in order to cool the walls to a demolding temperature (FIG. 4; 6:59+).
Regarding claim 21, Hahn suggests application of negative pressure on the mold cavity continues during and/or after the conveying through of the cooling medium and the cooling of the walls (3:8+).
Regarding claim 22, Bridges discloses the cooling medium is guided through the cavity in a closed circuit (FIG. 4; 6:59+).
Regarding claim 32, Hahn suggests application of negative pressure on the mold cavity continues during and/or after the conveying through of the cooling medium and the cooling of the walls (3:8+).
Claims 23 and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bridges et al. (US 3,225,126) in view of Lang et al. (US 10,836,083 B2) as applied to claim 13 or over Bridges and Lang further in view of Hahn et al. (EP 0 259 597 A2) as applied to claim 22 above, further in view of Erlenbach (US 3,837,769 A).
Bridges does not appear to expressly disclose the hot temperature control medium at a temperature of 150-200° C., instead Bridges suggests saturated steam at 80, 28, or 25 psig (324, 271, or 266° C.)
However, Erlenbach discloses a similar method of steam molding parts (title/abstract) in which the hot temperature control medium is maintained at 150° C. (11:3:12:5) which overlaps the claimed range (MPEP § 2144.05).
At the time of invention, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the temperature of Bridges to include the lower temperature of Erlenbach, in order to reduce the energy required in a manner known in the art.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10 March 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant contends that Bridges fails to disclose the additively manufactured mold. The Examiner agrees but points to Lang, as discussed above, to suggest that such a modification to Bridges is prima facie obvious.
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 Benjamin A Schiffman whose telephone number is (571)270-7626. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9a-530p EST.
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.
/BENJAMIN A SCHIFFMAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1742
Prosecution Insights