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 Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/0/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argued that the Office Action further states that "the mold tool-15 has an outlet-16 where the drain water is recycled" . Applicant notes, however, that Turner has only the mention of "drain" or "recycling" fluid in paragraph [0039], which states: "Water is drained for recycling back to an upstream step of the system." Thus, Turner makes no mention or has any teaching of where or how fluid is drained. Turner clearly fails to teach or suggest any opening for discharging a cleaning fluid.
.Turner didn’t explicitly disclose that opening for discharging the liquid , however Turner in [0039] discloses that water or contaminants are drained back upstream, i.e. backflow is defined as often pushing water or fluids backwards into a separate system in order to clean the tool. Therefore it would be obvious for ordinary skilled in the art to interpret that to drain the water and other contaminants out of the tool-15 in order to clean, at least one drain outlet/opening should be there to dispose off the waste water.
Further, Applicant disagrees that Johnson teaches or suggests the claimed combination of "a closure frame," "a closure element," and "a drain space." Accordingly, nothing in Johnson teaches or suggests that the "box 20" or the "insert 10" are part of any frame or element related to "closure," as recited in claim 1.
Examiner maintains that the for the broadest reasonable interpretation “closure frame in a mould” depicts an in-mold closing system where as shown in Johnson mould box-20 has a mating surface against a similar mould box and a similar mould insert mated to form a closed frame as shown in Figure 1., [0102], [0103]. The mechanism of closing two halves of the mould with two mould boxes are disclosed in detail in Johnson’s Figure 18, [1097] which is interpreted as a closed frame structure.
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 -6,11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Turner (US 20230357992) in view of Johnson (US ).
Regarding Claim 1 Turner discloses cleaning system comprising at least one cleaning unit for a forming unit for workpieces made of a starting material comprising fibers ([0011], [0038]), comprising:- a support and holding structure for the cleaning unit ( [0038] );- at least one molding tool (Figure 1, mold tool-15);wherein the at least one molding tool comprises:- at least one interior through which a flow can pass (Figure 1, [0038], channels through block 14 provide a path for liquid drawn through the mould), and- a pressing device, by means of which a force can be exerted on the at least one molding tool ([0033], hydraulic rams to clamp the molding tool), and wherein at least one inlet connection for an inlet line is provided on the at least one molding tool, via which inlet connection a cleaning fluid can be introduced into at least one interior of the molding tool (Figure 1, [0039], inlet-18 drawing water to mould-15).
Turner discloses drain off cleaning fluid through upstream step of the system , but didn’t disclose that draining the water waste would require some outlet(Figure 1, [0039], it would be obvious that Turner would have at least one outlet for pushing water or fluids backwards into a separate system in order to clean the tool ) but didn’t disclose that at least one mold part having a plurality of openings and the cleaning fluid can be discharged via the plurality of openings of the mold parts. However, the prior art discloses the claimed invention except for the duplication of the multiple opening in the molding tool. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to duplicate the multiple opening in the molding tool, since it have been held that a mere duplication of working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. One would have been motivated to duplicate multiple opening for the purpose of expediting the straining of the fluid in the strain space. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960)
The court held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced.
Further, Turner didn’t particularly disclose that wherein a closure frame and a closure element are provided. In the related field of endeavor pertaining to the cleaning of the mould through backwashing, Johnson discloses , a closure frame and a closure element (Figure 1, [0102], frame-20 and the element/insert-10) where the closure frame being arranged between the at least one molding tool and the closure element and these together forming a drain space (Figure 1, drain-26)
Turner discloses that the cleaning fluid/water is drained back in the drain space (Figure 1, [0039])-but didn’t disclose explicitly that the pressing device being designed for non- positive and sealing closure of the drain space and being arranged in an operative manner. Johnson discloses , piston/pressing device-109 forming a tight seal and the clean water id drained in mould-107, inlet pipe-111 (Figure 9, [0146], [0149], piston-109 is controlled by shaft-112 which allows for a controlled movement which is interpreted as the non positive sealing closure as known ).
It would be obvious for ordinary skilled in the art to combine Turner’s cleaning system with that of Johnson’s sealing for the reduced wear and tear as they are non contact seals for longer life of the sealing in the closure element
Regarding claim 2 Turner discloses , wherein the cleaning unit comprises two complementary molding tools, each of the two molding tools having at least one inlet connection for an inlet line ( Figure 1, moulding tool-15, inlet-18 drawing water to mould-15), via which inlet connection a cleaning fluid is configured to be introduced into at least one interior of the respective molding tool (inlet-18 drawing water to mould-15) and configured to be discharged via the …of the at least one mold part (Figure 1, drain oulet-16, [0039]). the mold tool-15 has an outlet -16 where the drain water is recycled), and both molding tools being equipped with - in each case a closure frame; and- in each case one or a common closure element and in each case forming a drain space (Figure annotated above, [0039], drain space- water is recycled back) .
Turner didn’t disclose that at least one mold part having a plurality of openings. , and the cleaning fluid can be discharged via the plurality of openings of the mold parts. However, the prior art discloses the claimed invention except for the duplication of the multiple opening in the molding tool. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to duplicate the multiple opening in the molding tool, since it have been held that a mere duplication of working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. One would have been motivated to duplicate multiple opening for the purpose of expediting the straining of the fluid in the strain space. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960)
The court held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced.
Regarding Claim 3, Turner discloses wherein the cleaning unit has two complementary molding tools, each of the two molding tools having at least one inlet connection for an inlet line, via which inlet connection a cleaning fluid is configured to be introduced into at least one interior of the respective molding tool (Figure 1, moulding tool-15, inlet-18 drawing water to mould-15) and is configured to be discharged ….of the at least one mold part (Figure 1, drain oulet-16, [0039]. the mold tool-15 has an outlet -16 where the drain water is recycled), and wherein the further molding tool functions as a closure element and the closure frame is arranged between the two molding tools (Figure annotated above).
Turner didn’t disclose that at least one mold part having a plurality of openings, and the cleaning fluid can be discharged via the plurality of openings of the mold parts. However, the prior art discloses the claimed invention except for the duplication of the multiple opening in the molding tool. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to duplicate the multiple opening in the molding tool, since it have been held that a mere duplication of working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. One would have been motivated to duplicate multiple opening for the purpose of expediting the straining of the fluid in the strain space. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960)
Regarding claim 4, Turner discloses wherein the pressing device is at least partially identical to that pressing device by means of which workpieces are configured to be formed ([0033]).
Regarding claim 5 Turner discloses wherein the pressing device is a mobile clamping and/or gripping unit ([0033]).
Regarding claim 6, Johnson discloses wherein the cleaning unit is comprised of at least one ultrasound emitter arranged on the closure frame and/or the molding tool ([0017], claim 32).
Regarding claim 11 Turner discloses wherein an automated transfer system is comprised, by means of which :- at least parts of the cleaning unit are configured to be supplied and removed in a fully or partially automated manner (moulding tool-15 which are part of the cleaning unit are clamped with hydraulic rams so the tools can be opened and closed based on the movement of the piston in the clamping mechanism).
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Turner (US 20230357992) in view of Johnson US 20100207300 as applied in Claim 1 further in view of Schalgel (US 6695988).
Regarding Claim 8, Turner discloses wherein the cleaning unit has two complementary molding tools, each of the two molding tools having at least one inlet connection for an inlet line and an outlet. However, Turner didn’t disclose that heat recovery is provided which comprises of heat exchanger. In the related field of endeavor pertaining to the art, Schalgel discloses wherein a heat recovery unit is provided which comprises at least one heat exchanger of the draining cleaning fluid as an energy source (Col 12, line 2-5).
It would have been obvious for one ordinary skilled in the art to combine the teaching of Turner’s cleaning unit with that of the Schalgel’s heat recovery unit for the purpose of facilitating the transfer of heat between the two fluid streams (inlet and oulet) while draining the recycled fluid.
Claim(s) 7, 9, 12-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Turner (US 20230357992) in view of Johnson US 20100207300 as applied in Claim 1 further in view of CN 212684468 hereinafter CN’468, translation attached.
Regarding Claim 7 Turner discloses wherein the cleaning unit has two complementary molding tools, each of the two molding tools having at least one inlet connection for an inlet line and an outlet [0038]), but didn’t disclose that wherein a conveying and pulse unit is provided upstream of the cleaning unit by means of the inlet line. In the related field of endeavor pertaining to the art, CN’468 discloses a pulse pump-41 upstream of the cleaning unit by means of which the inlet line is attached to the mold-10 (Figure 4, page-4, translated)
It would have been obvious for one ordinary skilled in the art to combine Turner’ with that of CN’468 pule pump unit for the purpose of generating pulsed fluid has an impact force, which can quickly impact and break the scaled sludge, which is easier to wash away the sludge and really quickly remove the scaled dirt (page 4, translated)
Regarding Claim 9 Turner discloses wherein the cleaning unit has two complementary molding tools, each of the two molding tools having at least one inlet connection for an inlet line and an outlet [0038]), but didn’t disclose that , explicitly a separation unit for separating solids/waste from the cleaning fluid. In the related field of endeavor pertaining to the art, CN’468 discloses a separation unit for separating solids/waste from the cleaning fluid, (page-4 last para, translated , fluid recovery unit to filter the contaminants).
It would have been obvious for one ordinary skilled in the art to combine Turner’ with that of CN’468 cleaning device which can quickly clean the sludge or waste components (page 2, 1st para, translated)
Regarding Claim 12, Turner discloses wherein the cleaning unit has two complementary molding tools, each of the two molding tools having at least one inlet connection for an inlet line and an outlet [0038]), but didn’t disclose that two cleaning units are provided which, independently of one another. In the related field of endeavor pertaining to the art, CN’468 discloses wherein two cleaning units are provided which, independently of one another, each comprise and clean a molding tool -10 (page-4, translated, ultrasonic cleaning , pulse cleaning).
It would have been obvious for one ordinary skilled in the art to combine Turner’ with that of CN’468 two cleaning units for the purpose of actual cleaning needs of the molding tool (page -4, translated).
Regarding Claim 13, Turner discloses wherein the cleaning unit has two complementary molding tools, each of the two molding tools having at least one inlet connection for an inlet line and an outlet , but didn’t disclose that wherein the cleaning system comprises or is connectable to a control unit. In the related CN 468 discloses wherein the cleaning system comprises or is connectable to a control unit, which is connected to at least one sensor of the cleaning system (Figure 4, controller-7 connects to control valve-51a and second control valve-52a, page-4 3rd para), and wherein the cleaning system and/or at least one cleaning method is configured to be at least temporarily controlled (page 4, translated either single cleaning method or combination of both cleaning methods can be used).
It would have been obvious for one ordinary skilled in the art to combine Turner’ with that of CN’468’s controller which controls the fluid through the cleaning unit(s) , so that it can quickly clean the sludge/waste (page 2, 1st para, translated)
Regarding Claim 14, Turner discloses wherein the cleaning unit has two complementary molding tools, each of the two molding tools having at least one inlet connection for an inlet line and an outlet but did not disclose cleaning system comprises or is connectable to a control unit which is connected to sensors cleaning system. In the related CN 468 discloses wherein the cleaning system comprises or is connectable to a control unit, which is connected to at least one sensor of the cleaning system comprises (Figure 7, page-4 3rd para , where sensors are integrated on to process the valve such as controller 7 can control whether to use ultrasonic cleaning by controlling the switch of the first control valve 51a. Further, controller controls whether to use pulse cleaning by controlling the switch of the second control valve 52a). Further Turner discloses wherein these data of the manufacturing device relate to at least one process condition of a manufacturing process ([0033]-[0036]) and are configured to be used for the operation of the cleaning system and at least one cleaning unit ([0011], cleaning removes residual fibers from the porous surface and reconditions the mould for repeated use, [0038], [0039]).
Claim(s) 15-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Turner (US 20230357992) in view of CN 212684468 hereinafter CN’468, translation attached further in view of WO’ 8702304, hereinafter WO’304.
Regarding Claim 15, Turner discloses manufacturing device for workpieces comprising a material feed unit, a forming unit, and a diverting unit (Figure 1 feed unit-16, forming unit-15), the forming unit having at least one of the following stations :- a preforming station with at least one preforming tool (Figure 1, mould tool-15,- a pressing station with at least one pressing device (Figure 1, [0033]). Turner didn’t particularly disclose that a control unit is provided with the cleaning system. In the related field of endeavor pertaining to the art, CN’468 discloses that wherein at least one control unit is provided, wherein for cleaning the at least one molding tool, a cleaning system with at least one cleaning unit is included (page-1, page-2, translated)
It would be obvious for one ordinary skilled wherein at least one combine Turner’ with that of CN’468’s controller which controls the flow output of the cleaning fluid outside the mold.
The combination didn’t disclose that Turner/CN’468 molding tool is held at one of the stations and is configured to be moved by the latter by motor drive. In the related field of endeavor pertaining to the art, WO’ 304 ,discloses drive for bringing the moulds closer and apart (page-6 translated).
It would be obvious for one ordinary skilled to combine Turner’ with that of WO’304 for the purpose of making the moulds mobile which would facilitate the demoulding of the workpiece.
Regarding Claim 16, Turner discloses that , wherein the preforming station and/or the pressing device are operable to be movable in such a way that at least parts of the cleaning unit are configured to be removed from and/or connected to a storage store (Figure 1, [0033], mould-15, pressing device are the hydraulic rams clamping the mould halves) .
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Turner (US 20230357992) in view of Johnson US 20100207300 as applied in Claim 1 further in view of CN 113243842 hereinafter CN’842.
Regarding Claim 10 Turner discloses , wherein the cleaning unit has two complementary molding tools, each of the two molding tools having at least one inlet connection for an inlet line and an outlet but did not disclose wherein a heating device is provided upstream of the cleaning unit. CN’842 discloses that a heating device is provided upstream of the cleaning unit. (Figure 6, heating device-250, page-9) .
It would have been obvious for one ordinary skilled in the art to combine Turner with that of the heating system of CN’842 for the purpose of adjusting the water temperature of the fluid (page -9, CN’842).
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DEBJANI ROY whose telephone number is (571)272-8019. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30-5:30 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, 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.
/DEBJANI ROY/Examiner, Art Unit 1741
/ALISON L HINDENLANG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1741