DETAILED ACTION
In Reply field on 10/7/2025, claims 16-17, 19-22, and 24-30 are pending. Claims 16-17, 19, and 22 are currently amended. Claims 1-15, 18, and 23 are canceled. Claims 25-30 are withdrawn. Claims 16-17, 19-22, and 24 would be considered in this Office 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 Interpretation
Claim 17 recites the limitations “a channel” (line 13) “an outlet” (line 15), “a first end” (line 15), “a source” (line 16), “an inlet” (line 16), “a second end” (line 16), “a vacuum” (line 18), “material” (line 19). The limitations would be considered as another new elements, which are different from the corresponding elements, respectively recited in claim 16 lines 13-21.
Claim 22 recites the limitation “cores” in line 2. The limitation would be interpreted as “channels” or “channel-like structures” according to Instant Specification ([0033] and fig. 5).
Claim Objections
Claims 16-17, 19, 24 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 16 should be corrected to “said channel having a length greater than a width” (line 18), “in [[a]] the first planar face of said first laminate sheet adjacent to [[a]] the second planar face of said second laminate sheet orientation” (lines 8-10).
Claim 17 should be corrected to “in [[a]] the first planar face of a first laminate sheet adj[[ ]]acent to [[a]] the second planar face of a second laminate sheet orientation” (lines 8-10), “in a shape of [[a]] the molded part” (lines 13-14), “at least one of said plurality of ordered laminate sheets” (line 15)
Claim 19 should be corrected to “the two adjacent laminate sheets” (line 2)
Claim 24 should be corrected to “between the adjacent laminate sheets without [[a]] the channel” (line 2).
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim 17 is 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.
Claim 17 recites the limitation “said ordered laminate sheets arranged in a stack …… to form each of said first mold part and said second mold part” in lines 8-10. It is unclear whether the limitation means that the first mold part, which is already formed and stacked of at least first and second bonded laminate sheets as recited in claim 16 lines 2-3 and lines 8-10, is further formed of another new ordered laminate sheets that are used to form said second mold part or not. For the purpose of examination, the limitation would be interpreted as “said ordered laminate sheets arranged in a stack …… to form
Claim 17 recites the limitation “said first mold part having a male configuration complementary to a female cavity mold configuration formed in said second mold part; said female cavity mold configuration in said second mold part having a surface contour in a shape of a molded part” in lines 10-14. It is unclear whether (1) the first mold part, which is having a mold cavity having a surface contour with graining in a shape of a molded part (claim 16 lines 10-11), further has a male configuration, in presence of the second mold part having a female cavity with a surface contour in a shape of a molded part, or (2) the second mold part of claim 17 should have been corresponded to the first mold part of claim 16. Instant Specification does not support the former case – i.e., the first mold part includes both the male configuration and the mold cavity (see Instant Specification: [0011, 0012]: as two separate embodiments; fig. 3). For the purpose of examination, the limitation would be interpreted as the latter case – i.e., the mold tool has two mold parts (i.e., one mold part with a male configuration, and the other mold part with a female cavity or a mold cavity) as recited without considering whether each of two mold parts is the first mold part or the second mold part.
Appropriate correction or clarification is required.
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.
Examiner wishes to point out to applicant that claims are directed towards an article and/or apparatus and as such will be examined under such conditions.
The limitations which are directed to articles or products worked upon by the claimed apparatus are only given patentable weight to the extent which effects the structure of the claimed invention. Please see MPEP 2115 and In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963); In re Young, 75 F.2d 996, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935) for further details.
The limitations which are directed to intended uses or capabilities of the claimed apparatus are only given patentable weight to the extent which effects the structure of the claimed invention. Please see MPEP 2114, Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) and Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987) for further details.
Claims 16-17 and 19-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weaver (US 5,031,483 A) in view of Guo (US 20240416573 A1) and Tobin (US 20190152126 A1).
Regarding claim 16, Weaver teaches a mold tool (14) to produce a contoured part (claim 1, col. 4 lines 54-60), comprising:
a first mold part (upper mold member 15 or lower mold member 16) formed of at least first and second bonded laminate sheets (planar laminations 21 or 22); each said laminate sheet having opposed first and second planar faces separated by a sidewall extending substantially unbroken therebetween to define a laminate sheet body; said sidewall defining a thickness of the laminate sheet body (figs. 1-3 and col. 4 lines 61- col. 5 line 3, col. 5 lines 12-16, abstract: a process for manufacturing tooling, e.g., molds, from individual laminations which when stacked in the proper sequence and bonded together define a forming surface; col. 7 lines 5-31: after stacking, the laminations are securely bonded together to form an integral unit);
each said laminate sheet arranged in a stack in a first planar face of said first laminate sheet adjacent to a second planar face of said second laminate sheet orientation to form said first mold part; said first mold part (lower mold member 16) having a mold cavity (cavity formed between male/female forming surfaces 17, 18) having a surface contour [with graining] in a shape of a molded part (figs. 1-3 and col. 4 lines 61- col. 5 line 3, col. 5 lines 12-16);
[at least one laminate sheet having a channel formed in at least one of the first planar face or the second planar face and extending into the thickness of the laminate sheet body; said channel having an outlet in fluid communication with said mold cavity at a first end and in fluid communication with a source of pressurized air, vacuum or atmosphere through an inlet at a second end of said channel; said channel having length greater than a width and extending only partially through the thickness of the laminate body; said channel to draw a vacuum in the mold cavity to facilitate molding of a thermoformable material into the mold cavity and to demold said part from said cavity after curing]
Weaver does not specifically teach the bracketed limitation(s) as presented above, but Guo and Tobin teach the limitations as follows:
Guo teaches a negative mold for luggage molding (abstract, fig. 5). Guo also teaches that a mold cavity has a surface contour with graining ([0007, 0033-0034]: the molding surface of the concave mold is provided with a grainy part and/or a glossy part).
Both Weaver and Guo teach a mold tool for forming a molded article (Weaver: col. 5 lines 4-11 and figs. 1-3; Guo: abstract, figs. 4-5). Weaver also teaches that the laminations are individually cut and machined to a predetermined contour and stacked in a proper sequence to for the desired mold (Weaver: col. 2 lines 15-17). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing invention to modify the mold cavity surface made from the surface contour of stacked individual laminations of Weaver to have a known surface pattern such as a grainy portion as taught by Guo in order to obtain known results or a reasonable expectation of successful results of forming a molded article with a desired surface pattern, appearance, and/or texture.
Tobin teaches a mold assembly for vacuum forming a component, and the mold assembly includes a plurality of mold plates removably coupled to the plurality of support plates, and the plurality of mold plates is stacked and removably coupled together to form a mold configured for forming the component (abstract, figs. 11, 13, 16). Tobin teaches that at least one laminate sheet having a channel (groove 148) formed in at least one of the first planar face or the second planar face and extending into the thickness of the laminate sheet body (figs. 11, 13, 16 and [0056, 0058]); said channel having an outlet (vacuum passage 152 on top side 120) in fluid communication with said mold cavity at a first end and in fluid communication with a source of pressurized air, vacuum or atmosphere through an inlet (vacuum passage 152 at bottom side) at a second end of said channel (id.); said channel having length greater than width and extending only partially through the thickness of the laminate body (id.); said channel to draw a vacuum in the mold cavity to facilitate molding of a thermoformable material into the mold cavity and to demold said molded part from said cavity after curing (id.; of note, the recited limitation is directed to intended use or capability of the groove 148, which is capable of performing the recited functions between the mold cavity and a source of vacuum, pressurized air, or atmosphere through the groove 148).
Both modified Weaver and Tobin teach a mold tool, comprising a plurality of mold plates, for vacuum forming a molded article (Weaver: col. 5 lines 4-11, col. 4 lines 3-7, and figs. 1-3, 9-10; Tobin: abstract, figs. 11, 13, 16). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of fling invention to modify a mold comprised of the laminates 21, 22 of modified Weaver to have another known fluid passageway (groove 48) between two adjacent mold forming plates, having a length greater than a width, and a fluid supplying structure connected thereon as taught by Tobin in order to obtain known results or a reasonable expectation of successful results of forming a fluid passageway to a mold cavity with an improved/focused control of fluid pressure through the passageway so as to obtain a mold article with reduced detects on surface finish and increased efficiency as molding cycle gets faster.
Regarding claim 17, modified Weaver teaches the mold tool of claim 16, further including
a second mold part (upper mold member 15 or lower mold member 16), said second mold part formed of a plurality of ordered laminate sheets (planar laminations 21 or 22); each said laminate sheet having opposed first and second planar faces separated by a sidewall extending substantially unbroken therebetween to define a laminate sheet body; said sidewall defining a thickness of the laminate sheet body (Weaver: figs. 1-3 and col. 4 lines 61- col. 5 line 3, col. 5 lines 12-16);
said ordered laminate sheets arranged in a stack in a first planar face of a first laminate sheet adjacent to a second planar face of a second laminate sheet orientation to form each of said first mold part and said second mold part; said first mold part (upper mold member 15) having a male configuration complementary to a female cavity mold configuration (cavity formed between male/female forming surfaces 17, 18) formed in said second mold part (lower mold member 16); said female cavity in said second mold part having a surface contour in a shape of a part to be molded (Weaver: figs. 1-3 and col. 4 lines 61- col. 5 line 3, col. 5 lines 12-16);
at least one laminate sheet having a channel (groove 148) formed in at least one of the first or second opposed planar faces and extending into the thickness of the laminate sheet body (Tobin: figs. 11, 13, 16 and [0056, 0058]); said channel having an outlet (vacuum passage 152 on top side 120) in fluid communication with said mold cavity at a first end and in fluid communication with a source of air, vacuum or atmosphere through an inlet (vacuum passage 152 at bottom side) at a second end of said channel (id.); said channel having greater length than width and extending only partially through the thickness of the laminate body (id.); said channel to draw a vacuum in the mold cavity to facilitate injection of material into the mold and permit introduction of pressurized air to the mold cavity to demold said part from said cavity (id.; of note, the recited limitation is directed to intended use or capability of the groove 148, which is capable of performing the recited functions between the mold cavity and a source of vacuum or air under pressure through the passage 152).
Thus, modified Weaver teaches all the claimed limitations, and the motivation to combine applied to claim 16 equally applies here.
Regarding claim 19, modified Weaver teaches the mold tool of claim 16, wherein the channel is formed in the sidewalls of two adjacent laminate sheets (Weaver: col. 5 lines 12-14, figs. 1-3; Tobin: figs. 13, 16 and [0056, 0058]: grooves 48 of each adjacent two mold plates form a passage 152).
Regarding claim 20, modified Weaver teaches the mold tool of claim 16, wherein the channel has a circular configuration (Tobin: fig. 13 and [0053]: the groove 148 may have a semi-circular cross-section or any suitable cross-section).
Regarding claim 21, modified Weaver teaches the mold tool of claim 16, wherein the channel is in fluid communication with a bore (Tobin: vacuum chamber 154) through said mold part at said channel inlet; said bore in fluid communication with said pressurized air, atmosphere or vacuum (Tobin: figs. 13, 16 and [0056, 0058]: vacuum chamber 154).
Regarding claim 22, modified Weaver teaches the mold tool of claim 16, further including a functional feature selected from vents, cores, slides and lifters, to facilitate interaction with the mold cavity to demold said molded part from said cavity (Tobin: figs. 13, 16 and [0056, 0058]: vacuum passage 158). Here, although modified Weaver does not explicitly disclose that the vent facilitates interaction with the mold cavity tooling surface to demold said molded part from said cavity, the vent (i.e., vacuum passage 158) is capable of performing the recited function, for example, by providing positive air pressure therethrough to release a molded article via vacuum molding.
Claim 22 (alternatively) and claim 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weaver (US 5,031,483 A), Guo (US 20240416573 A1), and Tobin (US 20190152126 A1) as applied to claim 16, and further in view of Lin (US 20080050463 A1) and Blog of Sositar Mould (“Ejection System” by Jackie Lau, available in public on 01/15/2021, https://sositarmould.com/ejection-system/, hereinafter Lau, listed in IDS filed on 10/17/2023).
Regarding claim 22, alternatively, modified Weaver does not specifically teach that the mold tool of claim 16, further including a functional feature selected from cores, slides and lifters, to facilitate interaction with the mold cavity to demold said molded part from said cavity.
Lin teaches a stacked type tooling formed by stacking a plurality of slices that can efficiently and substantially reduce the time and cost of manufacturing a tooling (abstract; [0002-0006]). A stacked type tooling 10 comprises a male mold 12 and a female mold 14, and a cavity 18 is formed between the male mold 12 and the female mold 14, and an ejection system is also provided in the tooling 10 with four through holes 22 in the male mold 12 (figs. 1, 2 and [0015, 0018]). However, Lin does not specifically teach what type of ejection system is used through the holes 22.
Lau teaches an ejection system of a molding process and that an effective projection method is needed to eject a product from the mold, and the product should be protected from deformation, ejector marks, cracking, and other damages (1st page, 1st paragraph). The ejection system comes in ejector pins (i.e., slides and cores wherein the slides pass through; pages 2-3), ejector blades (i.e., slides and cores wherein the slides pass through; pages 4-5), ejector sleeves, ejector blocks, stripper plates, lifters (i.e., lifter; page 8), an air ejection (i.e., vent; page 9). Of note, see above, the Claim Interpretation of “cores.”
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing invention to modify the laminate tooling mold of modified Weaver to have an ejection system through holes in the mold part, interacting with the surface of a mold cavity, as taught by Lin, in order to obtain known results of the laminate tooling mold having an ejection tool in a lightweight and highly efficient manner for easy removal of molded articles from the laminate tooling mold (Lin: derived from [0002]). Moreover, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing invention to further modify the ejection system through the holes of modified Weaver to have various types of ejection system such as ejector pins, ejector blades, lifters, and/or air ejection through the holes as taught by Lau, in order to obtain known results of ejecting molded articles from the laminate tooling mold without deformation, ejector marks, cracking, and or other damages (Lau: derived from page 1, 1st paragraph).
Regarding claim 24, modified Weaver teaches the mold tool of claim 22, wherein said functional feature is located between adjacent laminate sheets without a channel (Lin: figs. 1, 2 and [0015, 0018]: an ejection system is also provided in the tooling 10 with four through holes 22 in the male mold 12; Weaver: figs. 1-3; Tobin: figs. 9, 11, 16 and [0056, 0058]: groove 148 in the mold part having a cavity; of note, thus, the ejection system in the male mold at least does not have the channels which are disposed in the female mold).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 10/17/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive or moot. It is noted that the applicant has modified the claims with the latest amendment dated 10/17/2025, and wherein the arguments are based upon these changes.
The Applicant argues (see pages 6-7 of Remarks) that Weaver in view of Guo and Tobin does not disclose or suggest that “a first mold part formed of at least first and second bonded laminate sheets and having a mold cavity having a surface contour with graining in a shape of a molded part” as (A) the combination of Weaver and Guo is not obvious as Guo’s molding technology and formed product are different from the ones of Weaver, and (B) Weaver’s mold part includes a channel between laminate sheets which are not bonded together, and Tobin’s mold does not satisfy the deficiency.
Regarding argument (A), the Examiner respectfully disagrees with this argument. Both Weaver and Guo teach a mold tool for forming a molded article (Weaver: col. 5 lines 4-11 and figs. 1-3; Guo: abstract, figs. 4-5). Regardless of a specific molding process of Weaver or Guo, the molding processes are indistinguishable from each other in view that a molded product is formed as a complementary shape/surface contour of the ones of a mold tool. Thus, it is obvious to combine Guo’s teaching (i.e., a mold surface having a grain pattern) to Weaver so that the first mold part has a surface contour with graining. Moreover, Weaver’s molding tool is not limited to any specific product but applicable to any molded product.
Regarding argument (B), Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 16 (i.e., the limitation “a first mold part formed of at least first and second bonded laminate sheets”) (which have been newly amended by the applicants) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection have been made due to the newly added features from the applicant’s latest amendment. After further search and reconsideration, Weaver’s one embodiment (as shown in figs. 1-3, instead of the one as shown in fig. 9) is applied to the rejection. Thus, when Weaver’s teaching is modified in view of Tobin, modified Weaver does teach/suggest all the claimed limitations and the motivation to combine. Here, whether a plurality of mold plates 128 of Tobin, which are components of a mold 124, are not bonded or not is irrelevant as Weaver teaches that laminates 21, 22 for forming upper/lower mold members 15, 16 are bonded together (Tobin: fig. 11; Weaver: figs. 1-3). Moreover, two adjacent mold plates 128 of Tobin, forming the groove 148 (i.e., channel as recited), does not necessarily require to be removably coupled together to form a mold when such configuration is applied to Weaver’s laminates. At last, Tobin teaches that two adjacent mold plates 128 are sealed (i.e., bonded) together before use (Tobin: [0056]: the sealant or adhesive 150 (FIG. 15), such as silicone, may be applied to the fourth surfaces 140 of the mold plates 128 to create a seal between each adjacent pair of mold plates 128 to create a seal between each adjacent pair of mold plates 128).
Thus, after reconsideration, claims 16-17, 19-22, and 24 remain rejected.
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.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Turner (US 4,443,401 A) teaches an apparatus for thermoforming can bodies (abstract, figs. 2-6).
Onishi (US 20210146582 A1) teaches a mold cavity having leather-grain transfer surface (abstract, figs. 3A-3C).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to INJA SONG whose telephone number is (571)270-1605. The examiner can normally be reached Mon. - Fri. 8 AM - 5 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, Xiao (Sam) 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.
/INJA SONG/Examiner, Art Unit 1744
/XIAO S ZHAO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1744