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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant amendment filed 01/02/2026 has been entered and is currently under consideration. Claims 1 and 3-11 remain pending in the application.
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 1, 3-8, and 10-11 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.
In claim 1, it is not clear if the second mold part of the forming tool is required structure or recited as intended use. For the purpose of compact prosecution, the claim has been interpreted to require the structure.
In claim 4, it is not clear if the ejector piston is required structure or recited as intended use. For the purpose of compact prosecution, the claim has been interpreted to require the structure.
All claims dependent on the above rejected claims are rejected as well because they include all the limitations of the rejected claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
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.
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
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.
Claim(s) 1 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102((a)(1)) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Ran et al. (CN113878803 of record with reference made to examiner provided machine translation) hereinafter Ran.
Regarding claim 1, Ran teaches:
A mold of a forming tool configured to be used for resin transfer molding processes or injecting molding processes (Fig 2: ln 48-49), comprising:
a first mold part (Fig 2: lower mold 2) configured to act together with a second mold part of the forming tool (Fig 2: upper mold 1; ln 146-149) in order to form a cavity for a product to be fabricated (Fig 2),
wherein the first mold part limits on one side of the cavity with an inner surface (Fig 2), the inner surface comprising an integral surface section which is elastically deformable (Fig 2: elastic piece 3; ln 134-138), such that the integral surface section is configured to move relatively to adjacent surface areas in a demolding direction (Fig 2; ln 146-147);
and wherein the first mold part includes a pocket formed beneath the integral surface section in the demolding direction (Fig 2: groove 23; ln 134-138).
Ran does not teach the pocket is formed by removing material of the first mold.
However, this limitation is a product-by-process limitation. "[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." See MPEP 2113.
Ran is silent as to the process for manufacturing the pocket. However, the pocket of Ran possess the same structure as the claimed pocket and performs the same function for housing the integral surface section as described in applicant disclosure. The examiner further notes that applicant disclosure characterizes milling of the pocket as merely a preferred embodiment, and thus cannot be considered critical to outcome of the final product. Since the prior art pocket is substantially the same as the claimed pocket in function and form, the process by which the pocket is formed cannot be considered to impart patentability over the prior art pocket and therefore the claimed pocket is anticipated and/or made obvious by the prior art pocket.
Regarding claim 8, Ran teaches the mold of claim 1.
Ran further teaches a forming tool comprising: the mold according to claim 1 (Fig 2).
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.
Claim(s) 3-6 and 10-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ran.
Regarding claim 3, Ran teaches the apparatus of claim 1.
Ran further teaches a support element provided under the integral surface section in order to support the integral surface section during processing, wherein a width of the support element is the same as a width of the pocket (Fig 2, Annotated Ran Fig 2; ln 134-138).
PNG
media_image1.png
444
659
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Ran does not teach the support element is separate from, and movable with respect to, the first mold part. Ran teaches that the support element and first mold part are integral.
It has been broadly held that making a prior art structure separable is obvious. See MPEP 2144.04(V)(C).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have made the support element separable from the first mold part for the motivation of allowing the use of modular mold cavities.
If the support element is separable from the first mold part, then it is also inherently movable with respect to the first mold part.
Regarding claim 4, Ran teaches the apparatus of claim 3.
Ran further teaches wherein the support element has an upper recess which is used for housing and guiding an ejector piston (Fig 2, Annotated Ran Fig 2: telescopic cavity 21, telescopic rod 22; ln 159-170).
Regarding claim 5, Ran teaches the apparatus of claim 4.
Ran further teaches wherein the upper recess is configured such that, in the support element, the upper recess is in a middle of the integral surface section (Fig 2, Annotated Ran Fig 2).
Regarding claim 6, Ran teaches the apparatus of claim 4.
Ran further teaches wherein the support element has at least one support portion and at least one supply portion with a thickness which is less than a thickness of the support portion and in which all required supply lines are provided internally extending between the upper recess in the support portion and an outer supply connection area of the support element (Fig 2, Annotated Ran Fig 2).
Regarding claim 10, Ran teaches the apparatus of claim 6.
Ran further teaches wherein the ejector piston is adapted to push the integral surface section in a lifting direction during demolding (ln 153-155).
Ran does not explicitly recite wherein a back side of the ejector piston is pushed upwards by hydraulic pressure from one of the supply lines.
However, "apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990). A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). Functional claim language that is not limited to a specific structure covers all devices that are capable of performing the recited function. See MPEP 2114. 18. If pressurized cooling water is pumped into cooling tank 25 during demoulding, then the back side of the ejector piston would be pushed upwards by hydraulic pressure from one of the supply lines as claimed in conjunction with the spring force provided by tension springs 24 (ln 153-154). Therefore the prior art structure is capable of performing the claimed functions.
Regarding claim 11, Ran teaches the apparatus of claim 1.
Ran does not teach wherein the integral surface section and the adjacent surface areas consist of a same material.
However, Ran teaches that the elastic piece 3 is made of “tin bronze” (ln 143-144) and provides a cooling effect (ln 187-189).
Ran is silent as to the material of the adjacent surface areas.
However, Ran also teaches a desire to dissipate heat from the mold to reduce cooling and forming time of the product (ln 170).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have tried the tin bronze of the integral surface section as taught by Ran for the material of the adjacent surface areas and the results would have been predictable since Ran teaches that tin bronze provides a cooling effect and using both the elastic piece and adjacent surface areas to dissipate heat.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ran as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Cutler et al. (US3174189 of record) hereinafter Cutler.
Regarding claim 7, Ran teaches the apparatus of claim 6.
Ran does not teach a channel configured to receive the supply portion of the support element and having a length equal to the supply portion.
In the same field of endeavor regarding molding, Cutler teaches a channel configured to receive a supply portion (Fig 9-12: recesses 228, 230, runner stop blocks 226, runner grooves 234) having a length equal to the supply portion (Fig 10) for the motivation of providing a way to block off/open flow in the supply portion based on operational requirements using removable runner stop blocks (col 3, ln 66-75).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the mold as taught by Ran with the removable stop block mechanism as taught by Cutler in order to provide a way to block off/open flow in the supply portion based on operational requirements.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 01/02/2026 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
For at least the above reasons, the application is not in condition for allowance.
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 ALEXANDER A WANG whose telephone number is (571)272-5361. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 8 am-4 pm 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, Alison Hindenlang can be reached at 571-270-7001. 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.
/ALEXANDER A WANG/Examiner, Art Unit 1741
/ALISON L HINDENLANG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1741
Prosecution Insights